lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Nov]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v7 0/4] KASAN for arm64
From
Date


On 11/16/2015 07:51 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 06:34:27PM +0300, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
>> On 11/16/2015 02:16 PM, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
>>> On 13/10/15 09:34, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 06:52:56PM +0300, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
>>>>> Andrey Ryabinin (3):
>>>>> arm64: move PGD_SIZE definition to pgalloc.h
>>>>> arm64: add KASAN support
>>>>> Documentation/features/KASAN: arm64 supports KASAN now
>>>>>
>>>>> Linus Walleij (1):
>>>>> ARM64: kasan: print memory assignment
>>>>
>>>> Patches queued for 4.4. Thanks.
>>>
>>> I get the following failure with KASAN + 16K_PAGES + 48BIT_VA, with 4.4-rc1:
>>>
>>> arch/arm64/mm/kasan_init.c: In function ‘kasan_early_init’:
>>> include/linux/compiler.h:484:38: error: call to ‘__compiletime_assert_95’ declared with attribute error: BUILD_BUG_ON failed: !IS_ALIGNED(KASAN_SHADOW_END, PGDIR_SIZE)
>>> _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __LINE__)
>>> ^
>>> include/linux/compiler.h:467:4: note: in definition of macro ‘__compiletime_assert’
>>> prefix ## suffix(); \
>>> ^
>>> include/linux/compiler.h:484:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘_compiletime_assert’
>>> _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __LINE__)
>>> ^
>>> include/linux/bug.h:50:37: note: in expansion of macro ‘compiletime_assert’
>>> #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg)
>>> ^
>>> include/linux/bug.h:74:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG’
>>> BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(condition, "BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " #condition)
>>> ^
>>> arch/arm64/mm/kasan_init.c:95:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘BUILD_BUG_ON’
>>> BUILD_BUG_ON(!IS_ALIGNED(KASAN_SHADOW_END, PGDIR_SIZE));
>>>
>>> The problem is that the PGDIR_SIZE is (1UL << 47) with 16K+48bit, which makes
>>> the KASAN_SHADOW_END unaligned(which is aligned to (1UL << (48 - 3)) ). Is the
>>> alignment really needed ? Thoughts on how best we could fix this ?
>>
>> Yes, it's really needed, because some code relies on this (e.g.
>> clear_pgs() and kasan_init()). But it should be possible to get rid of
>> this requirement.
>
> I don't think clear_pgds() and kasan_init() are the only problems. IIUC,
> kasan_populate_zero_shadow() also assumes that KASan shadow covers
> multiple pgds. You need some kind of recursive writing which avoids
> populating an entry which is not empty (like kasan_early_pud_populate).
>

I think kasan_populate_zero_shadow() should be fine. We call pgd_populate() only
if address range covers the entire pgd:

if (IS_ALIGNED(addr, PGDIR_SIZE) && end - addr >= PGDIR_SIZE) {
....
pgd_populate(&init_mm, pgd, kasan_zero_pud);
....

and otherwise we check for pgd_none(*pgd):
if (pgd_none(*pgd)) {
pgd_populate(&init_mm, pgd,
early_alloc(PAGE_SIZE, NUMA_NO_NODE));
}


Is there any way to run 16K pages on emulated environment?
I've tried:
- ARM V8 Foundation Platformr0p0 (platform build 9.4.59)
- QEMU 2.4.0
and both just doesn't boot for me on 4.4-rc1 with 16k pages config.






\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-11-18 16:01    [W:0.099 / U:1.136 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site