[PATCH 0/2] ARM: fix PXN process with LPAE feature

[PATCH 0/2] ARM: fix PXN process with LPAE feature

[Kefeng Wang]

refactor and cleanup [__do|do]_page_fault, then fix the pxn process
when lpae feature enabled.

Kefeng Wang (2):
  ARM: mm: Refactor __do_page_fault()
  ARM: mm: Fix PXN process when ARM_LPAE enabled

 arch/arm/mm/fault.c | 78 +++++++++++++++++----------------------------
 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)

-- 
2.26.2

[PATCH 0/2] ARM: fix PXN process with LPAE feature

[Kefeng Wang]

refactor and cleanup [__do|do]_page_fault, then fix the pxn process
when lpae feature enabled.

Kefeng Wang (2):
  ARM: mm: Refactor __do_page_fault()
  ARM: mm: Fix PXN process when ARM_LPAE enabled

 arch/arm/mm/fault.c | 78 +++++++++++++++++----------------------------
 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)

-- 
2.26.2


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

[PATCH 1/2] ARM: mm: Refactor __do_page_fault()

[Kefeng Wang]

1. cleanup access_error(), make vma flags set and check into
   __do_page_fault() and do_page_fault() directly.

2. drop fsr and task argument, instead, using vm_flags in
   __do_page_fault().

3. cleans up the multiple goto statements in __do_page_fault().

4. use current->mm directly in do_page_fault().

Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
---
 arch/arm/mm/fault.c | 73 ++++++++++++++++-----------------------------
 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/fault.c b/arch/arm/mm/fault.c
index efa402025031..81cf3e6e2a3d 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mm/fault.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mm/fault.c
@@ -183,74 +183,45 @@ void do_bad_area(unsigned long addr, unsigned int fsr, struct pt_regs *regs)
 #define VM_FAULT_BADMAP		0x010000
 #define VM_FAULT_BADACCESS	0x020000
 
-/*
- * Check that the permissions on the VMA allow for the fault which occurred.
- * If we encountered a write fault, we must have write permission, otherwise
- * we allow any permission.
- */
-static inline bool access_error(unsigned int fsr, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
-{
-	unsigned int mask = VM_ACCESS_FLAGS;
-
-	if ((fsr & FSR_WRITE) && !(fsr & FSR_CM))
-		mask = VM_WRITE;
-	if (fsr & FSR_LNX_PF)
-		mask = VM_EXEC;
-
-	return vma->vm_flags & mask ? false : true;
-}
-
 static vm_fault_t __kprobes
-__do_page_fault(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, unsigned int fsr,
-		unsigned int flags, struct task_struct *tsk,
-		struct pt_regs *regs)
+__do_page_fault(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, unsigned int flags,
+		unsigned long vma_flags, struct pt_regs *regs)
 {
-	struct vm_area_struct *vma;
-	vm_fault_t fault;
-
-	vma = find_vma(mm, addr);
-	fault = VM_FAULT_BADMAP;
+	struct vm_area_struct *vma = find_vma(mm, addr);
 	if (unlikely(!vma))
-		goto out;
-	if (unlikely(vma->vm_start > addr))
-		goto check_stack;
+		return VM_FAULT_BADMAP;
+
+	if (unlikely(vma->vm_start > addr)) {
+		if (!(vma->vm_flags & VM_GROWSDOWN))
+			return VM_FAULT_BADMAP;
+		if (addr < FIRST_USER_ADDRESS)
+			return VM_FAULT_BADMAP;
+		if (expand_stack(vma, addr))
+			return VM_FAULT_BADMAP;
+	}
 
 	/*
 	 * Ok, we have a good vm_area for this
 	 * memory access, so we can handle it.
 	 */
-good_area:
-	if (access_error(fsr, vma)) {
-		fault = VM_FAULT_BADACCESS;
-		goto out;
-	}
+	if (!(vma->vm_flags & vma_flags))
+		return VM_FAULT_BADACCESS;
 
 	return handle_mm_fault(vma, addr & PAGE_MASK, flags, regs);
-
-check_stack:
-	/* Don't allow expansion below FIRST_USER_ADDRESS */
-	if (vma->vm_flags & VM_GROWSDOWN &&
-	    addr >= FIRST_USER_ADDRESS && !expand_stack(vma, addr))
-		goto good_area;
-out:
-	return fault;
 }
 
 static int __kprobes
 do_page_fault(unsigned long addr, unsigned int fsr, struct pt_regs *regs)
 {
-	struct task_struct *tsk;
-	struct mm_struct *mm;
+	struct mm_struct *mm = current->mm;
 	int sig, code;
 	vm_fault_t fault;
 	unsigned int flags = FAULT_FLAG_DEFAULT;
+	unsigned long vm_flags = VM_ACCESS_FLAGS;
 
 	if (kprobe_page_fault(regs, fsr))
 		return 0;
 
-	tsk = current;
-	mm  = tsk->mm;
-
 	/* Enable interrupts if they were enabled in the parent context. */
 	if (interrupts_enabled(regs))
 		local_irq_enable();
@@ -264,8 +235,14 @@ do_page_fault(unsigned long addr, unsigned int fsr, struct pt_regs *regs)
 
 	if (user_mode(regs))
 		flags |= FAULT_FLAG_USER;
-	if ((fsr & FSR_WRITE) && !(fsr & FSR_CM))
+
+	if ((fsr & FSR_WRITE) && !(fsr & FSR_CM)) {
 		flags |= FAULT_FLAG_WRITE;
+		vm_flags = VM_WRITE;
+	}
+
+	if (fsr & FSR_LNX_PF)
+		vm_flags = VM_EXEC;
 
 	perf_sw_event(PERF_COUNT_SW_PAGE_FAULTS, 1, regs, addr);
 
@@ -293,7 +270,7 @@ do_page_fault(unsigned long addr, unsigned int fsr, struct pt_regs *regs)
 #endif
 	}
 
-	fault = __do_page_fault(mm, addr, fsr, flags, tsk, regs);
+	fault = __do_page_fault(mm, addr, flags, vm_flags, regs);
 
 	/* If we need to retry but a fatal signal is pending, handle the
 	 * signal first. We do not need to release the mmap_lock because
-- 
2.26.2

[PATCH 1/2] ARM: mm: Refactor __do_page_fault()

[Kefeng Wang]

1. cleanup access_error(), make vma flags set and check into
   __do_page_fault() and do_page_fault() directly.

2. drop fsr and task argument, instead, using vm_flags in
   __do_page_fault().

3. cleans up the multiple goto statements in __do_page_fault().

4. use current->mm directly in do_page_fault().

Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
---
 arch/arm/mm/fault.c | 73 ++++++++++++++++-----------------------------
 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/fault.c b/arch/arm/mm/fault.c
index efa402025031..81cf3e6e2a3d 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mm/fault.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mm/fault.c
@@ -183,74 +183,45 @@ void do_bad_area(unsigned long addr, unsigned int fsr, struct pt_regs *regs)
 #define VM_FAULT_BADMAP		0x010000
 #define VM_FAULT_BADACCESS	0x020000
 
-/*
- * Check that the permissions on the VMA allow for the fault which occurred.
- * If we encountered a write fault, we must have write permission, otherwise
- * we allow any permission.
- */
-static inline bool access_error(unsigned int fsr, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
-{
-	unsigned int mask = VM_ACCESS_FLAGS;
-
-	if ((fsr & FSR_WRITE) && !(fsr & FSR_CM))
-		mask = VM_WRITE;
-	if (fsr & FSR_LNX_PF)
-		mask = VM_EXEC;
-
-	return vma->vm_flags & mask ? false : true;
-}
-
 static vm_fault_t __kprobes
-__do_page_fault(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, unsigned int fsr,
-		unsigned int flags, struct task_struct *tsk,
-		struct pt_regs *regs)
+__do_page_fault(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, unsigned int flags,
+		unsigned long vma_flags, struct pt_regs *regs)
 {
-	struct vm_area_struct *vma;
-	vm_fault_t fault;
-
-	vma = find_vma(mm, addr);
-	fault = VM_FAULT_BADMAP;
+	struct vm_area_struct *vma = find_vma(mm, addr);
 	if (unlikely(!vma))
-		goto out;
-	if (unlikely(vma->vm_start > addr))
-		goto check_stack;
+		return VM_FAULT_BADMAP;
+
+	if (unlikely(vma->vm_start > addr)) {
+		if (!(vma->vm_flags & VM_GROWSDOWN))
+			return VM_FAULT_BADMAP;
+		if (addr < FIRST_USER_ADDRESS)
+			return VM_FAULT_BADMAP;
+		if (expand_stack(vma, addr))
+			return VM_FAULT_BADMAP;
+	}
 
 	/*
 	 * Ok, we have a good vm_area for this
 	 * memory access, so we can handle it.
 	 */
-good_area:
-	if (access_error(fsr, vma)) {
-		fault = VM_FAULT_BADACCESS;
-		goto out;
-	}
+	if (!(vma->vm_flags & vma_flags))
+		return VM_FAULT_BADACCESS;
 
 	return handle_mm_fault(vma, addr & PAGE_MASK, flags, regs);
-
-check_stack:
-	/* Don't allow expansion below FIRST_USER_ADDRESS */
-	if (vma->vm_flags & VM_GROWSDOWN &&
-	    addr >= FIRST_USER_ADDRESS && !expand_stack(vma, addr))
-		goto good_area;
-out:
-	return fault;
 }
 
 static int __kprobes
 do_page_fault(unsigned long addr, unsigned int fsr, struct pt_regs *regs)
 {
-	struct task_struct *tsk;
-	struct mm_struct *mm;
+	struct mm_struct *mm = current->mm;
 	int sig, code;
 	vm_fault_t fault;
 	unsigned int flags = FAULT_FLAG_DEFAULT;
+	unsigned long vm_flags = VM_ACCESS_FLAGS;
 
 	if (kprobe_page_fault(regs, fsr))
 		return 0;
 
-	tsk = current;
-	mm  = tsk->mm;
-
 	/* Enable interrupts if they were enabled in the parent context. */
 	if (interrupts_enabled(regs))
 		local_irq_enable();
@@ -264,8 +235,14 @@ do_page_fault(unsigned long addr, unsigned int fsr, struct pt_regs *regs)
 
 	if (user_mode(regs))
 		flags |= FAULT_FLAG_USER;
-	if ((fsr & FSR_WRITE) && !(fsr & FSR_CM))
+
+	if ((fsr & FSR_WRITE) && !(fsr & FSR_CM)) {
 		flags |= FAULT_FLAG_WRITE;
+		vm_flags = VM_WRITE;
+	}
+
+	if (fsr & FSR_LNX_PF)
+		vm_flags = VM_EXEC;
 
 	perf_sw_event(PERF_COUNT_SW_PAGE_FAULTS, 1, regs, addr);
 
@@ -293,7 +270,7 @@ do_page_fault(unsigned long addr, unsigned int fsr, struct pt_regs *regs)
 #endif
 	}
 
-	fault = __do_page_fault(mm, addr, fsr, flags, tsk, regs);
+	fault = __do_page_fault(mm, addr, flags, vm_flags, regs);
 
 	/* If we need to retry but a fatal signal is pending, handle the
 	 * signal first. We do not need to release the mmap_lock because
-- 
2.26.2


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: mm: Refactor __do_page_fault()

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 11:41:37AM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote:
> 1. cleanup access_error(), make vma flags set and check into
>    __do_page_fault() and do_page_fault() directly.
> 
> 2. drop fsr and task argument, instead, using vm_flags in
>    __do_page_fault().
> 
> 3. cleans up the multiple goto statements in __do_page_fault().
> 
> 4. use current->mm directly in do_page_fault().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>

This patch is a really good example of something that is very difficult
to review and see that there are no unintended changes.

Many people have complained about my patches, where I create a series of
many patches where each patch does exactly _one_ simple transformation to
the code. This is a good example _why_ I do that - a step by step single
transformation approach is way easier to review.

Sorry, but I'm not able to sensibly review this patch, and therefore
I won't apply it. Please split it into smaller changes.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

Re: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: mm: Refactor __do_page_fault()

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 11:41:37AM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote:
> 1. cleanup access_error(), make vma flags set and check into
>    __do_page_fault() and do_page_fault() directly.
> 
> 2. drop fsr and task argument, instead, using vm_flags in
>    __do_page_fault().
> 
> 3. cleans up the multiple goto statements in __do_page_fault().
> 
> 4. use current->mm directly in do_page_fault().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>

This patch is a really good example of something that is very difficult
to review and see that there are no unintended changes.

Many people have complained about my patches, where I create a series of
many patches where each patch does exactly _one_ simple transformation to
the code. This is a good example _why_ I do that - a step by step single
transformation approach is way easier to review.

Sorry, but I'm not able to sensibly review this patch, and therefore
I won't apply it. Please split it into smaller changes.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: mm: Refactor __do_page_fault()

[Kefeng Wang]

On 2021/6/1 22:31, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 11:41:37AM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote:
>> 1. cleanup access_error(), make vma flags set and check into
>>     __do_page_fault() and do_page_fault() directly.
>>
>> 2. drop fsr and task argument, instead, using vm_flags in
>>     __do_page_fault().
>>
>> 3. cleans up the multiple goto statements in __do_page_fault().
>>
>> 4. use current->mm directly in do_page_fault().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
> This patch is a really good example of something that is very difficult
> to review and see that there are no unintended changes.
>
> Many people have complained about my patches, where I create a series of
> many patches where each patch does exactly _one_ simple transformation to
> the code. This is a good example _why_ I do that - a step by step single
> transformation approach is way easier to review.
>
> Sorry, but I'm not able to sensibly review this patch, and therefore
> I won't apply it. Please split it into smaller changes.
Ok, will split it and send v2, thanks.
>

Re: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: mm: Refactor __do_page_fault()

[Kefeng Wang]

On 2021/6/1 22:31, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 11:41:37AM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote:
>> 1. cleanup access_error(), make vma flags set and check into
>>     __do_page_fault() and do_page_fault() directly.
>>
>> 2. drop fsr and task argument, instead, using vm_flags in
>>     __do_page_fault().
>>
>> 3. cleans up the multiple goto statements in __do_page_fault().
>>
>> 4. use current->mm directly in do_page_fault().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
> This patch is a really good example of something that is very difficult
> to review and see that there are no unintended changes.
>
> Many people have complained about my patches, where I create a series of
> many patches where each patch does exactly _one_ simple transformation to
> the code. This is a good example _why_ I do that - a step by step single
> transformation approach is way easier to review.
>
> Sorry, but I'm not able to sensibly review this patch, and therefore
> I won't apply it. Please split it into smaller changes.
Ok, will split it and send v2, thanks.
>

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: mm: Refactor __do_page_fault()

[Ard Biesheuvel]

On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 at 16:32, Russell King (Oracle)
<linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 11:41:37AM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote:
> > 1. cleanup access_error(), make vma flags set and check into
> >    __do_page_fault() and do_page_fault() directly.
> >
> > 2. drop fsr and task argument, instead, using vm_flags in
> >    __do_page_fault().
> >
> > 3. cleans up the multiple goto statements in __do_page_fault().
> >
> > 4. use current->mm directly in do_page_fault().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
>
> This patch is a really good example of something that is very difficult
> to review and see that there are no unintended changes.
>
> Many people have complained about my patches, where I create a series of
> many patches where each patch does exactly _one_ simple transformation to
> the code. This is a good example _why_ I do that - a step by step single
> transformation approach is way easier to review.
>
> Sorry, but I'm not able to sensibly review this patch, and therefore
> I won't apply it. Please split it into smaller changes.
>

Agreed. If your commit message contains an enumeration of things the
patch does, it is a very strong hint that each of those things needs
to be a separate patch if at all possible.

Re: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: mm: Refactor __do_page_fault()

[Ard Biesheuvel]

On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 at 16:32, Russell King (Oracle)
<linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 11:41:37AM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote:
> > 1. cleanup access_error(), make vma flags set and check into
> >    __do_page_fault() and do_page_fault() directly.
> >
> > 2. drop fsr and task argument, instead, using vm_flags in
> >    __do_page_fault().
> >
> > 3. cleans up the multiple goto statements in __do_page_fault().
> >
> > 4. use current->mm directly in do_page_fault().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
>
> This patch is a really good example of something that is very difficult
> to review and see that there are no unintended changes.
>
> Many people have complained about my patches, where I create a series of
> many patches where each patch does exactly _one_ simple transformation to
> the code. This is a good example _why_ I do that - a step by step single
> transformation approach is way easier to review.
>
> Sorry, but I'm not able to sensibly review this patch, and therefore
> I won't apply it. Please split it into smaller changes.
>

Agreed. If your commit message contains an enumeration of things the
patch does, it is a very strong hint that each of those things needs
to be a separate patch if at all possible.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: mm: Refactor __do_page_fault()

[Ard Biesheuvel]

On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 at 11:49, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 at 16:32, Russell King (Oracle)
> <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 11:41:37AM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote:
> > > 1. cleanup access_error(), make vma flags set and check into
> > >    __do_page_fault() and do_page_fault() directly.
> > >
> > > 2. drop fsr and task argument, instead, using vm_flags in
> > >    __do_page_fault().
> > >
> > > 3. cleans up the multiple goto statements in __do_page_fault().
> > >
> > > 4. use current->mm directly in do_page_fault().
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
> >
> > This patch is a really good example of something that is very difficult
> > to review and see that there are no unintended changes.
> >
> > Many people have complained about my patches, where I create a series of
> > many patches where each patch does exactly _one_ simple transformation to
> > the code. This is a good example _why_ I do that - a step by step single
> > transformation approach is way easier to review.
> >
> > Sorry, but I'm not able to sensibly review this patch, and therefore
> > I won't apply it. Please split it into smaller changes.
> >
>
> Agreed. If your commit message contains an enumeration of things the
> patch does, it is a very strong hint that each of those things needs
> to be a separate patch if at all possible.

Also, apologies for digging up this 2 year old thread :-) I did so
unintentionally.

(Somehow, it turned up as new/unread in my LAKML folder)

Re: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: mm: Refactor __do_page_fault()

[Ard Biesheuvel]

On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 at 11:49, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 at 16:32, Russell King (Oracle)
> <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 11:41:37AM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote:
> > > 1. cleanup access_error(), make vma flags set and check into
> > >    __do_page_fault() and do_page_fault() directly.
> > >
> > > 2. drop fsr and task argument, instead, using vm_flags in
> > >    __do_page_fault().
> > >
> > > 3. cleans up the multiple goto statements in __do_page_fault().
> > >
> > > 4. use current->mm directly in do_page_fault().
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
> >
> > This patch is a really good example of something that is very difficult
> > to review and see that there are no unintended changes.
> >
> > Many people have complained about my patches, where I create a series of
> > many patches where each patch does exactly _one_ simple transformation to
> > the code. This is a good example _why_ I do that - a step by step single
> > transformation approach is way easier to review.
> >
> > Sorry, but I'm not able to sensibly review this patch, and therefore
> > I won't apply it. Please split it into smaller changes.
> >
>
> Agreed. If your commit message contains an enumeration of things the
> patch does, it is a very strong hint that each of those things needs
> to be a separate patch if at all possible.

Also, apologies for digging up this 2 year old thread :-) I did so
unintentionally.

(Somehow, it turned up as new/unread in my LAKML folder)

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: mm: Refactor __do_page_fault()

[Kefeng Wang]

On 2023/6/2 17:51, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 at 11:49, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 at 16:32, Russell King (Oracle)
>> <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 11:41:37AM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote:
>>>> 1. cleanup access_error(), make vma flags set and check into
>>>>     __do_page_fault() and do_page_fault() directly.
>>>>
>>>> 2. drop fsr and task argument, instead, using vm_flags in
>>>>     __do_page_fault().
>>>>
>>>> 3. cleans up the multiple goto statements in __do_page_fault().
>>>>
>>>> 4. use current->mm directly in do_page_fault().
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
>>>
>>> This patch is a really good example of something that is very difficult
>>> to review and see that there are no unintended changes.
>>>
>>> Many people have complained about my patches, where I create a series of
>>> many patches where each patch does exactly _one_ simple transformation to
>>> the code. This is a good example _why_ I do that - a step by step single
>>> transformation approach is way easier to review.
>>>
>>> Sorry, but I'm not able to sensibly review this patch, and therefore
>>> I won't apply it. Please split it into smaller changes.
>>>
>>
>> Agreed. If your commit message contains an enumeration of things the
>> patch does, it is a very strong hint that each of those things needs
>> to be a separate patch if at all possible.

Yes, already split it and the new version is merged,
> 
> Also, apologies for digging up this 2 year old thread :-) I did so
> unintentionally.

Never mind, thank for all kind of reviews :)
> 
> (Somehow, it turned up as new/unread in my LAKML folder)

Re: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: mm: Refactor __do_page_fault()

[Kefeng Wang]

On 2023/6/2 17:51, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 at 11:49, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 at 16:32, Russell King (Oracle)
>> <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 11:41:37AM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote:
>>>> 1. cleanup access_error(), make vma flags set and check into
>>>>     __do_page_fault() and do_page_fault() directly.
>>>>
>>>> 2. drop fsr and task argument, instead, using vm_flags in
>>>>     __do_page_fault().
>>>>
>>>> 3. cleans up the multiple goto statements in __do_page_fault().
>>>>
>>>> 4. use current->mm directly in do_page_fault().
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
>>>
>>> This patch is a really good example of something that is very difficult
>>> to review and see that there are no unintended changes.
>>>
>>> Many people have complained about my patches, where I create a series of
>>> many patches where each patch does exactly _one_ simple transformation to
>>> the code. This is a good example _why_ I do that - a step by step single
>>> transformation approach is way easier to review.
>>>
>>> Sorry, but I'm not able to sensibly review this patch, and therefore
>>> I won't apply it. Please split it into smaller changes.
>>>
>>
>> Agreed. If your commit message contains an enumeration of things the
>> patch does, it is a very strong hint that each of those things needs
>> to be a separate patch if at all possible.

Yes, already split it and the new version is merged,
> 
> Also, apologies for digging up this 2 year old thread :-) I did so
> unintentionally.

Never mind, thank for all kind of reviews :)
> 
> (Somehow, it turned up as new/unread in my LAKML folder)



_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

[PATCH 2/2] ARM: mm: Fix PXN process when ARM_LPAE enabled

[Kefeng Wang]

If we support PXN feature, should panic when user code execution
with privilege mode, but it is not true when LAPE enabled, let's
fix it by adding the check in do_page_fault().

Fixes: 1d4d37159d01 ("ARM: 8235/1: Support for the PXN CPU feature on ARMv7")
Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
---
 arch/arm/mm/fault.c | 7 ++++++-
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/fault.c b/arch/arm/mm/fault.c
index 81cf3e6e2a3d..a6ada914cdf5 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mm/fault.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mm/fault.c
@@ -241,8 +241,13 @@ do_page_fault(unsigned long addr, unsigned int fsr, struct pt_regs *regs)
 		vm_flags = VM_WRITE;
 	}
 
-	if (fsr & FSR_LNX_PF)
+	if (fsr & FSR_LNX_PF) {
 		vm_flags = VM_EXEC;
+#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_LPAE
+		if (addr < TASK_SIZE && !user_mode(regs))
+			__do_kernel_fault(mm, addr, fsr, regs);
+#endif
+	}
 
 	perf_sw_event(PERF_COUNT_SW_PAGE_FAULTS, 1, regs, addr);
 
-- 
2.26.2

[PATCH 2/2] ARM: mm: Fix PXN process when ARM_LPAE enabled

[Kefeng Wang]

If we support PXN feature, should panic when user code execution
with privilege mode, but it is not true when LAPE enabled, let's
fix it by adding the check in do_page_fault().

Fixes: 1d4d37159d01 ("ARM: 8235/1: Support for the PXN CPU feature on ARMv7")
Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
---
 arch/arm/mm/fault.c | 7 ++++++-
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/fault.c b/arch/arm/mm/fault.c
index 81cf3e6e2a3d..a6ada914cdf5 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mm/fault.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mm/fault.c
@@ -241,8 +241,13 @@ do_page_fault(unsigned long addr, unsigned int fsr, struct pt_regs *regs)
 		vm_flags = VM_WRITE;
 	}
 
-	if (fsr & FSR_LNX_PF)
+	if (fsr & FSR_LNX_PF) {
 		vm_flags = VM_EXEC;
+#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_LPAE
+		if (addr < TASK_SIZE && !user_mode(regs))
+			__do_kernel_fault(mm, addr, fsr, regs);
+#endif
+	}
 
 	perf_sw_event(PERF_COUNT_SW_PAGE_FAULTS, 1, regs, addr);
 
-- 
2.26.2


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH 0/2] ARM: fix PXN process with LPAE feature

[Kefeng Wang]

On 2021/5/29 11:41, Kefeng Wang wrote:
> refactor and cleanup [__do|do]_page_fault, then fix the pxn process
> when lpae feature enabled.

Additional information:

when user code execution with privilege mode, it will lead infinite loop

in the page fault handler if ARM_LPAE enabled,  the issue could be

reproduced with  "echo EXEC_USERSPACE > 
/sys/kernel/debug/provoke-crash/DIRECT"

also I could add a die_kernel_fault() (like arm64 does) to report different

message in different scenes.

Any comments, thanks.


>
> Kefeng Wang (2):
>    ARM: mm: Refactor __do_page_fault()
>    ARM: mm: Fix PXN process when ARM_LPAE enabled
>
>   arch/arm/mm/fault.c | 78 +++++++++++++++++----------------------------
>   1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)
>

Re: [PATCH 0/2] ARM: fix PXN process with LPAE feature

[Kefeng Wang]

On 2021/5/29 11:41, Kefeng Wang wrote:
> refactor and cleanup [__do|do]_page_fault, then fix the pxn process
> when lpae feature enabled.

Additional information:

when user code execution with privilege mode, it will lead infinite loop

in the page fault handler if ARM_LPAE enabled,  the issue could be

reproduced with  "echo EXEC_USERSPACE > 
/sys/kernel/debug/provoke-crash/DIRECT"

also I could add a die_kernel_fault() (like arm64 does) to report different

message in different scenes.

Any comments, thanks.


>
> Kefeng Wang (2):
>    ARM: mm: Refactor __do_page_fault()
>    ARM: mm: Fix PXN process when ARM_LPAE enabled
>
>   arch/arm/mm/fault.c | 78 +++++++++++++++++----------------------------
>   1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)
>

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel