lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jan]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC 3/4] x86/pti: don't mark the user PGD with _PAGE_NX.
    [ expanded the Cc list a bit ]

    On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 09:03:36AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
    > On 01/08/2018 08:12 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
    > > Since we're going to keep running on the same PGD when returning to
    > > userspace for certain performance-critical tasks, we'll need the user
    > > pages to be executable. So this code disables the extra protection
    > > that was added consisting in marking user pages _PAGE_NX so that this
    > > pgd remains usable for userspace.
    > >
    > > Note: it isn't necessarily the best approach, but one way or another
    > > if we want to be able to return to userspace from the kernel,
    > > we'll have to have this executable anyway. Another approach
    > > might consist in using another pgd for userland+kernel but
    > > the current core really looks like an extra careful measure
    > > to catch early bugs if any.
    >
    > I don't like this.

    This is the purpose of the review.

    > I think the prctl() should apply to an entire process, not to a thread.

    As I mentionned in another mail, I didn't know how to do it, even less
    how to do it fast enough so that we didn't add more cycles to the syscall
    code.

    > If it applies to a process, you can unpoison the PGD. I even had code
    > to do this in an earlier version of the (whole system) runtime PTI
    > on/off stuff.
    >
    > Why are you even posting half-baked hacks like this now? Is there
    > something super-pressing about this set that we need to lock in a new
    > ABI now?

    No need to lock in or whatever. It's just that a number of us simply
    cannot use the current protection due to the huge cost it comes with
    for their specific workload, and having to choose between performance
    or protection remains a problem. Having a bit more available time and
    being directly concerned by this problem I tried to propose something
    to 1) see if there was any hope and 2) possibly help things move forward
    in this direction. The patches are marked RFC, they're for discussing,
    not for merging.

    Willy

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2018-01-14 23:17    [W:4.041 / U:1.048 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site