[PATCH 0/2] x86: deal with remaining W+X pages on Xen

[PATCH 0/2] x86: deal with remaining W+X pages on Xen

[Jan Beulich]

The two patches here are entirely independent (i.e. they could by applied
in any order and/or go through separate trees), but for the warning to go
away both are necessary.

1: x86: consider effective protection attributes in W+X check
2: x86-64/Xen: eliminate W+X pages

Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>

[PATCH 1/2] x86: consider effective protection attributes in W+X check

[Jan Beulich]

Using just the leaf page table entry flags would cause a false warning
in case _PAGE_RW is clear or _PAGE_NX is set in a higher level entry.
Hand through both the current entry's flags as well as the accumulated
effective value (the latter as pgprotval_t instead of pgprot_t, as it's
not an actual entry's value).

Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
---
 arch/x86/mm/dump_pagetables.c |   92 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
 1 file changed, 57 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)

--- 4.15-rc3/arch/x86/mm/dump_pagetables.c
+++ 4.15-rc3-x86-dumppgt-effective-prot/arch/x86/mm/dump_pagetables.c
@@ -29,6 +29,7 @@
 struct pg_state {
 	int level;
 	pgprot_t current_prot;
+	pgprotval_t effective_prot;
 	unsigned long start_address;
 	unsigned long current_address;
 	const struct addr_marker *marker;
@@ -202,9 +203,9 @@ static unsigned long normalize_addr(unsi
  * print what we collected so far.
  */
 static void note_page(struct seq_file *m, struct pg_state *st,
-		      pgprot_t new_prot, int level)
+		      pgprot_t new_prot, pgprotval_t new_eff, int level)
 {
-	pgprotval_t prot, cur;
+	pgprotval_t prot, cur, eff;
 	static const char units[] = "BKMGTPE";
 
 	/*
@@ -214,23 +215,24 @@ static void note_page(struct seq_file *m
 	 */
 	prot = pgprot_val(new_prot);
 	cur = pgprot_val(st->current_prot);
+	eff = st->effective_prot;
 
 	if (!st->level) {
 		/* First entry */
 		st->current_prot = new_prot;
+		st->effective_prot = new_eff;
 		st->level = level;
 		st->marker = address_markers;
 		st->lines = 0;
 		pt_dump_seq_printf(m, st->to_dmesg, "---[ %s ]---\n",
 				   st->marker->name);
-	} else if (prot != cur || level != st->level ||
+	} else if (prot != cur || new_eff != eff || level != st->level ||
 		   st->current_address >= st->marker[1].start_address) {
 		const char *unit = units;
 		unsigned long delta;
 		int width = sizeof(unsigned long) * 2;
-		pgprotval_t pr = pgprot_val(st->current_prot);
 
-		if (st->check_wx && (pr & _PAGE_RW) && !(pr & _PAGE_NX)) {
+		if (st->check_wx && (eff & _PAGE_RW) && !(eff & _PAGE_NX)) {
 			WARN_ONCE(1,
 				  "x86/mm: Found insecure W+X mapping at address %p/%pS\n",
 				  (void *)st->start_address,
@@ -284,21 +286,30 @@ static void note_page(struct seq_file *m
 
 		st->start_address = st->current_address;
 		st->current_prot = new_prot;
+		st->effective_prot = new_eff;
 		st->level = level;
 	}
 }
 
-static void walk_pte_level(struct seq_file *m, struct pg_state *st, pmd_t addr, unsigned long P)
+static inline pgprotval_t effective_prot(pgprotval_t prot1, pgprotval_t prot2)
+{
+	return (prot1 & prot2 & (_PAGE_USER | _PAGE_RW)) |
+	       ((prot1 | prot2) & _PAGE_NX);
+}
+
+static void walk_pte_level(struct seq_file *m, struct pg_state *st, pmd_t addr,
+			   pgprotval_t eff_in, unsigned long P)
 {
 	int i;
 	pte_t *start;
-	pgprotval_t prot;
+	pgprotval_t prot, eff;
 
 	start = (pte_t *)pmd_page_vaddr(addr);
 	for (i = 0; i < PTRS_PER_PTE; i++) {
 		prot = pte_flags(*start);
+		eff = effective_prot(eff_in, prot);
 		st->current_address = normalize_addr(P + i * PTE_LEVEL_MULT);
-		note_page(m, st, __pgprot(prot), 5);
+		note_page(m, st, __pgprot(prot), eff, 5);
 		start++;
 	}
 }
@@ -335,42 +346,45 @@ static inline bool kasan_page_table(stru
 
 #if PTRS_PER_PMD > 1
 
-static void walk_pmd_level(struct seq_file *m, struct pg_state *st, pud_t addr, unsigned long P)
+static void walk_pmd_level(struct seq_file *m, struct pg_state *st, pud_t addr,
+			   pgprotval_t eff_in, unsigned long P)
 {
 	int i;
 	pmd_t *start, *pmd_start;
-	pgprotval_t prot;
+	pgprotval_t prot, eff;
 
 	pmd_start = start = (pmd_t *)pud_page_vaddr(addr);
 	for (i = 0; i < PTRS_PER_PMD; i++) {
 		st->current_address = normalize_addr(P + i * PMD_LEVEL_MULT);
 		if (!pmd_none(*start)) {
+			prot = pmd_flags(*start);
+			eff = effective_prot(eff_in, prot);
 			if (pmd_large(*start) || !pmd_present(*start)) {
-				prot = pmd_flags(*start);
-				note_page(m, st, __pgprot(prot), 4);
+				note_page(m, st, __pgprot(prot), eff, 4);
 			} else if (!kasan_page_table(m, st, pmd_start)) {
-				walk_pte_level(m, st, *start,
+				walk_pte_level(m, st, *start, eff,
 					       P + i * PMD_LEVEL_MULT);
 			}
 		} else
-			note_page(m, st, __pgprot(0), 4);
+			note_page(m, st, __pgprot(0), 0, 4);
 		start++;
 	}
 }
 
 #else
-#define walk_pmd_level(m,s,a,p) walk_pte_level(m,s,__pmd(pud_val(a)),p)
+#define walk_pmd_level(m,s,a,e,p) walk_pte_level(m,s,__pmd(pud_val(a)),e,p)
 #define pud_large(a) pmd_large(__pmd(pud_val(a)))
 #define pud_none(a)  pmd_none(__pmd(pud_val(a)))
 #endif
 
 #if PTRS_PER_PUD > 1
 
-static void walk_pud_level(struct seq_file *m, struct pg_state *st, p4d_t addr, unsigned long P)
+static void walk_pud_level(struct seq_file *m, struct pg_state *st, p4d_t addr,
+			   pgprotval_t eff_in, unsigned long P)
 {
 	int i;
 	pud_t *start, *pud_start;
-	pgprotval_t prot;
+	pgprotval_t prot, eff;
 	pud_t *prev_pud = NULL;
 
 	pud_start = start = (pud_t *)p4d_page_vaddr(addr);
@@ -378,15 +392,16 @@ static void walk_pud_level(struct seq_fi
 	for (i = 0; i < PTRS_PER_PUD; i++) {
 		st->current_address = normalize_addr(P + i * PUD_LEVEL_MULT);
 		if (!pud_none(*start)) {
+			prot = pud_flags(*start);
+			eff = effective_prot(eff_in, prot);
 			if (pud_large(*start) || !pud_present(*start)) {
-				prot = pud_flags(*start);
-				note_page(m, st, __pgprot(prot), 3);
+				note_page(m, st, __pgprot(prot), eff, 3);
 			} else if (!kasan_page_table(m, st, pud_start)) {
-				walk_pmd_level(m, st, *start,
+				walk_pmd_level(m, st, *start, eff,
 					       P + i * PUD_LEVEL_MULT);
 			}
 		} else
-			note_page(m, st, __pgprot(0), 3);
+			note_page(m, st, __pgprot(0), 0, 3);
 
 		prev_pud = start;
 		start++;
@@ -394,40 +409,42 @@ static void walk_pud_level(struct seq_fi
 }
 
 #else
-#define walk_pud_level(m,s,a,p) walk_pmd_level(m,s,__pud(p4d_val(a)),p)
+#define walk_pud_level(m,s,a,e,p) walk_pmd_level(m,s,__pud(p4d_val(a)),e,p)
 #define p4d_large(a) pud_large(__pud(p4d_val(a)))
 #define p4d_none(a)  pud_none(__pud(p4d_val(a)))
 #endif
 
 #if PTRS_PER_P4D > 1
 
-static void walk_p4d_level(struct seq_file *m, struct pg_state *st, pgd_t addr, unsigned long P)
+static void walk_p4d_level(struct seq_file *m, struct pg_state *st, pgd_t addr,
+			   pgprotval_t eff_in, unsigned long P)
 {
 	int i;
 	p4d_t *start, *p4d_start;
-	pgprotval_t prot;
+	pgprotval_t prot, eff;
 
 	p4d_start = start = (p4d_t *)pgd_page_vaddr(addr);
 
 	for (i = 0; i < PTRS_PER_P4D; i++) {
 		st->current_address = normalize_addr(P + i * P4D_LEVEL_MULT);
 		if (!p4d_none(*start)) {
+			prot = p4d_flags(*start);
+			eff = effective_prot(eff_in, prot);
 			if (p4d_large(*start) || !p4d_present(*start)) {
-				prot = p4d_flags(*start);
-				note_page(m, st, __pgprot(prot), 2);
+				note_page(m, st, __pgprot(prot), eff, 2);
 			} else if (!kasan_page_table(m, st, p4d_start)) {
-				walk_pud_level(m, st, *start,
+				walk_pud_level(m, st, *start, eff,
 					       P + i * P4D_LEVEL_MULT);
 			}
 		} else
-			note_page(m, st, __pgprot(0), 2);
+			note_page(m, st, __pgprot(0), 0, 2);
 
 		start++;
 	}
 }
 
 #else
-#define walk_p4d_level(m,s,a,p) walk_pud_level(m,s,__p4d(pgd_val(a)),p)
+#define walk_p4d_level(m,s,a,e,p) walk_pud_level(m,s,__p4d(pgd_val(a)),e,p)
 #define pgd_large(a) p4d_large(__p4d(pgd_val(a)))
 #define pgd_none(a)  p4d_none(__p4d(pgd_val(a)))
 #endif
@@ -454,7 +471,7 @@ static void ptdump_walk_pgd_level_core(s
 #else
 	pgd_t *start = swapper_pg_dir;
 #endif
-	pgprotval_t prot;
+	pgprotval_t prot, eff;
 	int i;
 	struct pg_state st = {};
 
@@ -470,15 +487,20 @@ static void ptdump_walk_pgd_level_core(s
 	for (i = 0; i < PTRS_PER_PGD; i++) {
 		st.current_address = normalize_addr(i * PGD_LEVEL_MULT);
 		if (!pgd_none(*start) && !is_hypervisor_range(i)) {
+			prot = pgd_flags(*start);
+#ifdef CONFIG_X86_PAE
+			eff = _PAGE_USER | _PAGE_RW;
+#else
+			eff = prot;
+#endif
 			if (pgd_large(*start) || !pgd_present(*start)) {
-				prot = pgd_flags(*start);
-				note_page(m, &st, __pgprot(prot), 1);
+				note_page(m, &st, __pgprot(prot), eff, 1);
 			} else {
-				walk_p4d_level(m, &st, *start,
+				walk_p4d_level(m, &st, *start, eff,
 					       i * PGD_LEVEL_MULT);
 			}
 		} else
-			note_page(m, &st, __pgprot(0), 1);
+			note_page(m, &st, __pgprot(0), 0, 1);
 
 		cond_resched();
 		start++;
@@ -486,7 +508,7 @@ static void ptdump_walk_pgd_level_core(s
 
 	/* Flush out the last page */
 	st.current_address = normalize_addr(PTRS_PER_PGD*PGD_LEVEL_MULT);
-	note_page(m, &st, __pgprot(0), 0);
+	note_page(m, &st, __pgprot(0), 0, 0);
 	if (!checkwx)
 		return;
 	if (st.wx_pages)

Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: consider effective protection attributes in W+X check

[Ingo Molnar]

* Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:

> Using just the leaf page table entry flags would cause a false warning
> in case _PAGE_RW is clear or _PAGE_NX is set in a higher level entry.

Good find - I assume this bug can cause both false positives and false negatives 
as well, right?

Thanks,

	Ingo

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: consider effective protection attributes in W+X check

[Ingo Molnar]

* Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:

> Using just the leaf page table entry flags would cause a false warning
> in case _PAGE_RW is clear or _PAGE_NX is set in a higher level entry.

Good find - I assume this bug can cause both false positives and false negatives 
as well, right?

Thanks,

	Ingo

Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: consider effective protection attributes in W+X check

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 12.12.17 at 11:36, <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:

> * Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> 
>> Using just the leaf page table entry flags would cause a false warning
>> in case _PAGE_RW is clear or _PAGE_NX is set in a higher level entry.
> 
> Good find - I assume this bug can cause both false positives and false 
> negatives 
> as well, right?

Yes, albeit I'm not aware of any outside of Xen (with that other patch
applied).

Jan

Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: consider effective protection attributes in W+X check

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 12.12.17 at 11:36, <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:

> * Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> 
>> Using just the leaf page table entry flags would cause a false warning
>> in case _PAGE_RW is clear or _PAGE_NX is set in a higher level entry.
> 
> Good find - I assume this bug can cause both false positives and false 
> negatives 
> as well, right?

Yes, albeit I'm not aware of any outside of Xen (with that other patch
applied).

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

[PATCH 1/2] x86: consider effective protection attributes in W+X check

[Jan Beulich]

Using just the leaf page table entry flags would cause a false warning
in case _PAGE_RW is clear or _PAGE_NX is set in a higher level entry.
Hand through both the current entry's flags as well as the accumulated
effective value (the latter as pgprotval_t instead of pgprot_t, as it's
not an actual entry's value).

Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
---
 arch/x86/mm/dump_pagetables.c |   92 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
 1 file changed, 57 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)

--- 4.15-rc3/arch/x86/mm/dump_pagetables.c
+++ 4.15-rc3-x86-dumppgt-effective-prot/arch/x86/mm/dump_pagetables.c
@@ -29,6 +29,7 @@
 struct pg_state {
 	int level;
 	pgprot_t current_prot;
+	pgprotval_t effective_prot;
 	unsigned long start_address;
 	unsigned long current_address;
 	const struct addr_marker *marker;
@@ -202,9 +203,9 @@ static unsigned long normalize_addr(unsi
  * print what we collected so far.
  */
 static void note_page(struct seq_file *m, struct pg_state *st,
-		      pgprot_t new_prot, int level)
+		      pgprot_t new_prot, pgprotval_t new_eff, int level)
 {
-	pgprotval_t prot, cur;
+	pgprotval_t prot, cur, eff;
 	static const char units[] = "BKMGTPE";
 
 	/*
@@ -214,23 +215,24 @@ static void note_page(struct seq_file *m
 	 */
 	prot = pgprot_val(new_prot);
 	cur = pgprot_val(st->current_prot);
+	eff = st->effective_prot;
 
 	if (!st->level) {
 		/* First entry */
 		st->current_prot = new_prot;
+		st->effective_prot = new_eff;
 		st->level = level;
 		st->marker = address_markers;
 		st->lines = 0;
 		pt_dump_seq_printf(m, st->to_dmesg, "---[ %s ]---\n",
 				   st->marker->name);
-	} else if (prot != cur || level != st->level ||
+	} else if (prot != cur || new_eff != eff || level != st->level ||
 		   st->current_address >= st->marker[1].start_address) {
 		const char *unit = units;
 		unsigned long delta;
 		int width = sizeof(unsigned long) * 2;
-		pgprotval_t pr = pgprot_val(st->current_prot);
 
-		if (st->check_wx && (pr & _PAGE_RW) && !(pr & _PAGE_NX)) {
+		if (st->check_wx && (eff & _PAGE_RW) && !(eff & _PAGE_NX)) {
 			WARN_ONCE(1,
 				  "x86/mm: Found insecure W+X mapping at address %p/%pS\n",
 				  (void *)st->start_address,
@@ -284,21 +286,30 @@ static void note_page(struct seq_file *m
 
 		st->start_address = st->current_address;
 		st->current_prot = new_prot;
+		st->effective_prot = new_eff;
 		st->level = level;
 	}
 }
 
-static void walk_pte_level(struct seq_file *m, struct pg_state *st, pmd_t addr, unsigned long P)
+static inline pgprotval_t effective_prot(pgprotval_t prot1, pgprotval_t prot2)
+{
+	return (prot1 & prot2 & (_PAGE_USER | _PAGE_RW)) |
+	       ((prot1 | prot2) & _PAGE_NX);
+}
+
+static void walk_pte_level(struct seq_file *m, struct pg_state *st, pmd_t addr,
+			   pgprotval_t eff_in, unsigned long P)
 {
 	int i;
 	pte_t *start;
-	pgprotval_t prot;
+	pgprotval_t prot, eff;
 
 	start = (pte_t *)pmd_page_vaddr(addr);
 	for (i = 0; i < PTRS_PER_PTE; i++) {
 		prot = pte_flags(*start);
+		eff = effective_prot(eff_in, prot);
 		st->current_address = normalize_addr(P + i * PTE_LEVEL_MULT);
-		note_page(m, st, __pgprot(prot), 5);
+		note_page(m, st, __pgprot(prot), eff, 5);
 		start++;
 	}
 }
@@ -335,42 +346,45 @@ static inline bool kasan_page_table(stru
 
 #if PTRS_PER_PMD > 1
 
-static void walk_pmd_level(struct seq_file *m, struct pg_state *st, pud_t addr, unsigned long P)
+static void walk_pmd_level(struct seq_file *m, struct pg_state *st, pud_t addr,
+			   pgprotval_t eff_in, unsigned long P)
 {
 	int i;
 	pmd_t *start, *pmd_start;
-	pgprotval_t prot;
+	pgprotval_t prot, eff;
 
 	pmd_start = start = (pmd_t *)pud_page_vaddr(addr);
 	for (i = 0; i < PTRS_PER_PMD; i++) {
 		st->current_address = normalize_addr(P + i * PMD_LEVEL_MULT);
 		if (!pmd_none(*start)) {
+			prot = pmd_flags(*start);
+			eff = effective_prot(eff_in, prot);
 			if (pmd_large(*start) || !pmd_present(*start)) {
-				prot = pmd_flags(*start);
-				note_page(m, st, __pgprot(prot), 4);
+				note_page(m, st, __pgprot(prot), eff, 4);
 			} else if (!kasan_page_table(m, st, pmd_start)) {
-				walk_pte_level(m, st, *start,
+				walk_pte_level(m, st, *start, eff,
 					       P + i * PMD_LEVEL_MULT);
 			}
 		} else
-			note_page(m, st, __pgprot(0), 4);
+			note_page(m, st, __pgprot(0), 0, 4);
 		start++;
 	}
 }
 
 #else
-#define walk_pmd_level(m,s,a,p) walk_pte_level(m,s,__pmd(pud_val(a)),p)
+#define walk_pmd_level(m,s,a,e,p) walk_pte_level(m,s,__pmd(pud_val(a)),e,p)
 #define pud_large(a) pmd_large(__pmd(pud_val(a)))
 #define pud_none(a)  pmd_none(__pmd(pud_val(a)))
 #endif
 
 #if PTRS_PER_PUD > 1
 
-static void walk_pud_level(struct seq_file *m, struct pg_state *st, p4d_t addr, unsigned long P)
+static void walk_pud_level(struct seq_file *m, struct pg_state *st, p4d_t addr,
+			   pgprotval_t eff_in, unsigned long P)
 {
 	int i;
 	pud_t *start, *pud_start;
-	pgprotval_t prot;
+	pgprotval_t prot, eff;
 	pud_t *prev_pud = NULL;
 
 	pud_start = start = (pud_t *)p4d_page_vaddr(addr);
@@ -378,15 +392,16 @@ static void walk_pud_level(struct seq_fi
 	for (i = 0; i < PTRS_PER_PUD; i++) {
 		st->current_address = normalize_addr(P + i * PUD_LEVEL_MULT);
 		if (!pud_none(*start)) {
+			prot = pud_flags(*start);
+			eff = effective_prot(eff_in, prot);
 			if (pud_large(*start) || !pud_present(*start)) {
-				prot = pud_flags(*start);
-				note_page(m, st, __pgprot(prot), 3);
+				note_page(m, st, __pgprot(prot), eff, 3);
 			} else if (!kasan_page_table(m, st, pud_start)) {
-				walk_pmd_level(m, st, *start,
+				walk_pmd_level(m, st, *start, eff,
 					       P + i * PUD_LEVEL_MULT);
 			}
 		} else
-			note_page(m, st, __pgprot(0), 3);
+			note_page(m, st, __pgprot(0), 0, 3);
 
 		prev_pud = start;
 		start++;
@@ -394,40 +409,42 @@ static void walk_pud_level(struct seq_fi
 }
 
 #else
-#define walk_pud_level(m,s,a,p) walk_pmd_level(m,s,__pud(p4d_val(a)),p)
+#define walk_pud_level(m,s,a,e,p) walk_pmd_level(m,s,__pud(p4d_val(a)),e,p)
 #define p4d_large(a) pud_large(__pud(p4d_val(a)))
 #define p4d_none(a)  pud_none(__pud(p4d_val(a)))
 #endif
 
 #if PTRS_PER_P4D > 1
 
-static void walk_p4d_level(struct seq_file *m, struct pg_state *st, pgd_t addr, unsigned long P)
+static void walk_p4d_level(struct seq_file *m, struct pg_state *st, pgd_t addr,
+			   pgprotval_t eff_in, unsigned long P)
 {
 	int i;
 	p4d_t *start, *p4d_start;
-	pgprotval_t prot;
+	pgprotval_t prot, eff;
 
 	p4d_start = start = (p4d_t *)pgd_page_vaddr(addr);
 
 	for (i = 0; i < PTRS_PER_P4D; i++) {
 		st->current_address = normalize_addr(P + i * P4D_LEVEL_MULT);
 		if (!p4d_none(*start)) {
+			prot = p4d_flags(*start);
+			eff = effective_prot(eff_in, prot);
 			if (p4d_large(*start) || !p4d_present(*start)) {
-				prot = p4d_flags(*start);
-				note_page(m, st, __pgprot(prot), 2);
+				note_page(m, st, __pgprot(prot), eff, 2);
 			} else if (!kasan_page_table(m, st, p4d_start)) {
-				walk_pud_level(m, st, *start,
+				walk_pud_level(m, st, *start, eff,
 					       P + i * P4D_LEVEL_MULT);
 			}
 		} else
-			note_page(m, st, __pgprot(0), 2);
+			note_page(m, st, __pgprot(0), 0, 2);
 
 		start++;
 	}
 }
 
 #else
-#define walk_p4d_level(m,s,a,p) walk_pud_level(m,s,__p4d(pgd_val(a)),p)
+#define walk_p4d_level(m,s,a,e,p) walk_pud_level(m,s,__p4d(pgd_val(a)),e,p)
 #define pgd_large(a) p4d_large(__p4d(pgd_val(a)))
 #define pgd_none(a)  p4d_none(__p4d(pgd_val(a)))
 #endif
@@ -454,7 +471,7 @@ static void ptdump_walk_pgd_level_core(s
 #else
 	pgd_t *start = swapper_pg_dir;
 #endif
-	pgprotval_t prot;
+	pgprotval_t prot, eff;
 	int i;
 	struct pg_state st = {};
 
@@ -470,15 +487,20 @@ static void ptdump_walk_pgd_level_core(s
 	for (i = 0; i < PTRS_PER_PGD; i++) {
 		st.current_address = normalize_addr(i * PGD_LEVEL_MULT);
 		if (!pgd_none(*start) && !is_hypervisor_range(i)) {
+			prot = pgd_flags(*start);
+#ifdef CONFIG_X86_PAE
+			eff = _PAGE_USER | _PAGE_RW;
+#else
+			eff = prot;
+#endif
 			if (pgd_large(*start) || !pgd_present(*start)) {
-				prot = pgd_flags(*start);
-				note_page(m, &st, __pgprot(prot), 1);
+				note_page(m, &st, __pgprot(prot), eff, 1);
 			} else {
-				walk_p4d_level(m, &st, *start,
+				walk_p4d_level(m, &st, *start, eff,
 					       i * PGD_LEVEL_MULT);
 			}
 		} else
-			note_page(m, &st, __pgprot(0), 1);
+			note_page(m, &st, __pgprot(0), 0, 1);
 
 		cond_resched();
 		start++;
@@ -486,7 +508,7 @@ static void ptdump_walk_pgd_level_core(s
 
 	/* Flush out the last page */
 	st.current_address = normalize_addr(PTRS_PER_PGD*PGD_LEVEL_MULT);
-	note_page(m, &st, __pgprot(0), 0);
+	note_page(m, &st, __pgprot(0), 0, 0);
 	if (!checkwx)
 		return;
 	if (st.wx_pages)



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

[PATCH 2/2] x86-64/Xen: eliminate W+X mappings

[Jan Beulich]

A few thousand such pages are usually left around due to the re-use of
L1 tables having been provided by the hypervisor (Dom0) or tool stack
(DomU). Set NX in the direct map variant, which needs to be done in L2
due to the dual use of the re-used L1s.

For x86_configure_nx() to actually do what it is supposed to do, call
get_cpu_cap() first. This was broken by commit 4763ed4d45 ("x86, mm:
Clean up and simplify NX enablement") when switching away from the
direct EFER read.

Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
---
While I certainly dislike the added header inclusion to obtain the
prototype for get_cpu_cap(), I couldn't find a better alternative. I'm
open to suggestions.
---
 arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c |    3 +++
 arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c       |   10 ++++++++++
 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+)

--- 4.15-rc3/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c
+++ 4.15-rc3-x86_64-Xen-avoid-W+X/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c
@@ -88,6 +88,8 @@
 #include "multicalls.h"
 #include "pmu.h"
 
+#include "../kernel/cpu/cpu.h" /* get_cpu_cap() */
+
 void *xen_initial_gdt;
 
 static int xen_cpu_up_prepare_pv(unsigned int cpu);
@@ -1258,6 +1260,7 @@ asmlinkage __visible void __init xen_sta
 	__userpte_alloc_gfp &= ~__GFP_HIGHMEM;
 
 	/* Work out if we support NX */
+	get_cpu_cap(&boot_cpu_data);
 	x86_configure_nx();
 
 	/* Get mfn list */
--- 4.15-rc3/arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c
+++ 4.15-rc3-x86_64-Xen-avoid-W+X/arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c
@@ -1902,6 +1902,16 @@ void __init xen_setup_kernel_pagetable(p
 	/* Graft it onto L4[511][510] */
 	copy_page(level2_kernel_pgt, l2);
 
+	/* Zap execute permission from the ident map. Due to the sharing of
+	 * L1 entries we need to do this in the L2. */
+	if (__supported_pte_mask & _PAGE_NX)
+		for (i = 0; i < PTRS_PER_PMD; ++i) {
+			if (pmd_none(level2_ident_pgt[i]))
+				continue;
+			level2_ident_pgt[i] =
+				pmd_set_flags(level2_ident_pgt[i], _PAGE_NX);
+		}
+
 	/* Copy the initial P->M table mappings if necessary. */
 	i = pgd_index(xen_start_info->mfn_list);
 	if (i && i < pgd_index(__START_KERNEL_map))

Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86-64/Xen: eliminate W+X mappings

[Ingo Molnar]

* Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:

> A few thousand such pages are usually left around due to the re-use of
> L1 tables having been provided by the hypervisor (Dom0) or tool stack
> (DomU). Set NX in the direct map variant, which needs to be done in L2
> due to the dual use of the re-used L1s.
> 
> For x86_configure_nx() to actually do what it is supposed to do, call
> get_cpu_cap() first. This was broken by commit 4763ed4d45 ("x86, mm:
> Clean up and simplify NX enablement") when switching away from the
> direct EFER read.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> ---
> While I certainly dislike the added header inclusion to obtain the
> prototype for get_cpu_cap(), I couldn't find a better alternative. I'm
> open to suggestions.
> ---
>  arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c |    3 +++
>  arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c       |   10 ++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 13 insertions(+)
> 
> --- 4.15-rc3/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c
> +++ 4.15-rc3-x86_64-Xen-avoid-W+X/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c
> @@ -88,6 +88,8 @@
>  #include "multicalls.h"
>  #include "pmu.h"
>  
> +#include "../kernel/cpu/cpu.h" /* get_cpu_cap() */
> +
>  void *xen_initial_gdt;
>  
>  static int xen_cpu_up_prepare_pv(unsigned int cpu);
> @@ -1258,6 +1260,7 @@ asmlinkage __visible void __init xen_sta
>  	__userpte_alloc_gfp &= ~__GFP_HIGHMEM;
>  
>  	/* Work out if we support NX */
> +	get_cpu_cap(&boot_cpu_data);
>  	x86_configure_nx();
>  
>  	/* Get mfn list */
> --- 4.15-rc3/arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c
> +++ 4.15-rc3-x86_64-Xen-avoid-W+X/arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c
> @@ -1902,6 +1902,16 @@ void __init xen_setup_kernel_pagetable(p
>  	/* Graft it onto L4[511][510] */
>  	copy_page(level2_kernel_pgt, l2);
>  
> +	/* Zap execute permission from the ident map. Due to the sharing of
> +	 * L1 entries we need to do this in the L2. */

please use the customary (multi-line) comment style:

  /*
   * Comment .....
   * ...... goes here.
   */

specified in Documentation/CodingStyle.

> +	if (__supported_pte_mask & _PAGE_NX)
> +		for (i = 0; i < PTRS_PER_PMD; ++i) {
> +			if (pmd_none(level2_ident_pgt[i]))
> +				continue;
> +			level2_ident_pgt[i] =
> +				pmd_set_flags(level2_ident_pgt[i], _PAGE_NX);

So the line break here is quite distracting, especially considering how similar it 
is to the alignment of the 'continue' statement. I.e. visually it looks like 
control flow alignment.

Would be much better to just leave it a single page and ignore checkpatch here.

Thanks,

	Ingo

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86-64/Xen: eliminate W+X mappings

[Ingo Molnar]

* Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:

> A few thousand such pages are usually left around due to the re-use of
> L1 tables having been provided by the hypervisor (Dom0) or tool stack
> (DomU). Set NX in the direct map variant, which needs to be done in L2
> due to the dual use of the re-used L1s.
> 
> For x86_configure_nx() to actually do what it is supposed to do, call
> get_cpu_cap() first. This was broken by commit 4763ed4d45 ("x86, mm:
> Clean up and simplify NX enablement") when switching away from the
> direct EFER read.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> ---
> While I certainly dislike the added header inclusion to obtain the
> prototype for get_cpu_cap(), I couldn't find a better alternative. I'm
> open to suggestions.
> ---
>  arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c |    3 +++
>  arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c       |   10 ++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 13 insertions(+)
> 
> --- 4.15-rc3/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c
> +++ 4.15-rc3-x86_64-Xen-avoid-W+X/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c
> @@ -88,6 +88,8 @@
>  #include "multicalls.h"
>  #include "pmu.h"
>  
> +#include "../kernel/cpu/cpu.h" /* get_cpu_cap() */
> +
>  void *xen_initial_gdt;
>  
>  static int xen_cpu_up_prepare_pv(unsigned int cpu);
> @@ -1258,6 +1260,7 @@ asmlinkage __visible void __init xen_sta
>  	__userpte_alloc_gfp &= ~__GFP_HIGHMEM;
>  
>  	/* Work out if we support NX */
> +	get_cpu_cap(&boot_cpu_data);
>  	x86_configure_nx();
>  
>  	/* Get mfn list */
> --- 4.15-rc3/arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c
> +++ 4.15-rc3-x86_64-Xen-avoid-W+X/arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c
> @@ -1902,6 +1902,16 @@ void __init xen_setup_kernel_pagetable(p
>  	/* Graft it onto L4[511][510] */
>  	copy_page(level2_kernel_pgt, l2);
>  
> +	/* Zap execute permission from the ident map. Due to the sharing of
> +	 * L1 entries we need to do this in the L2. */

please use the customary (multi-line) comment style:

  /*
   * Comment .....
   * ...... goes here.
   */

specified in Documentation/CodingStyle.

> +	if (__supported_pte_mask & _PAGE_NX)
> +		for (i = 0; i < PTRS_PER_PMD; ++i) {
> +			if (pmd_none(level2_ident_pgt[i]))
> +				continue;
> +			level2_ident_pgt[i] =
> +				pmd_set_flags(level2_ident_pgt[i], _PAGE_NX);

So the line break here is quite distracting, especially considering how similar it 
is to the alignment of the 'continue' statement. I.e. visually it looks like 
control flow alignment.

Would be much better to just leave it a single page and ignore checkpatch here.

Thanks,

	Ingo

Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86-64/Xen: eliminate W+X mappings

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 12.12.17 at 11:38, <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> * Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>> --- 4.15-rc3/arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c
>> +++ 4.15-rc3-x86_64-Xen-avoid-W+X/arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c
>> @@ -1902,6 +1902,16 @@ void __init xen_setup_kernel_pagetable(p
>>  	/* Graft it onto L4[511][510] */
>>  	copy_page(level2_kernel_pgt, l2);
>>  
>> +	/* Zap execute permission from the ident map. Due to the sharing of
>> +	 * L1 entries we need to do this in the L2. */
> 
> please use the customary (multi-line) comment style:
> 
>   /*
>    * Comment .....
>    * ...... goes here.
>    */
> 
> specified in Documentation/CodingStyle.

I would have but didn't because all other comments in this function
use this (wrong) style. I've concluded that consistency is better
here than matching the style doc. If the Xen maintainers tell me
otherwise, I'll happily adjust the patch.

>> +	if (__supported_pte_mask & _PAGE_NX)
>> +		for (i = 0; i < PTRS_PER_PMD; ++i) {
>> +			if (pmd_none(level2_ident_pgt[i]))
>> +				continue;
>> +			level2_ident_pgt[i] =
>> +				pmd_set_flags(level2_ident_pgt[i], _PAGE_NX);
> 
> So the line break here is quite distracting, especially considering how similar it 
> is to the alignment of the 'continue' statement. I.e. visually it looks like 
> control flow alignment.
> 
> Would be much better to just leave it a single page and ignore checkpatch 
> here.

Again I'll wait to see what the Xen maintainers think. I too dislike
line splits like this one, but the line ended up quite a bit too long,
not just a character or two. I also wasn't sure whether splitting
between the function arguments would be okay, leaving the first
line just slightly too long.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86-64/Xen: eliminate W+X mappings

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 12.12.17 at 11:38, <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> * Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>> --- 4.15-rc3/arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c
>> +++ 4.15-rc3-x86_64-Xen-avoid-W+X/arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c
>> @@ -1902,6 +1902,16 @@ void __init xen_setup_kernel_pagetable(p
>>  	/* Graft it onto L4[511][510] */
>>  	copy_page(level2_kernel_pgt, l2);
>>  
>> +	/* Zap execute permission from the ident map. Due to the sharing of
>> +	 * L1 entries we need to do this in the L2. */
> 
> please use the customary (multi-line) comment style:
> 
>   /*
>    * Comment .....
>    * ...... goes here.
>    */
> 
> specified in Documentation/CodingStyle.

I would have but didn't because all other comments in this function
use this (wrong) style. I've concluded that consistency is better
here than matching the style doc. If the Xen maintainers tell me
otherwise, I'll happily adjust the patch.

>> +	if (__supported_pte_mask & _PAGE_NX)
>> +		for (i = 0; i < PTRS_PER_PMD; ++i) {
>> +			if (pmd_none(level2_ident_pgt[i]))
>> +				continue;
>> +			level2_ident_pgt[i] =
>> +				pmd_set_flags(level2_ident_pgt[i], _PAGE_NX);
> 
> So the line break here is quite distracting, especially considering how similar it 
> is to the alignment of the 'continue' statement. I.e. visually it looks like 
> control flow alignment.
> 
> Would be much better to just leave it a single page and ignore checkpatch 
> here.

Again I'll wait to see what the Xen maintainers think. I too dislike
line splits like this one, but the line ended up quite a bit too long,
not just a character or two. I also wasn't sure whether splitting
between the function arguments would be okay, leaving the first
line just slightly too long.

Jan

Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86-64/Xen: eliminate W+X mappings

[Ingo Molnar]

* Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:

> >>> On 12.12.17 at 11:38, <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> > * Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> >> --- 4.15-rc3/arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c
> >> +++ 4.15-rc3-x86_64-Xen-avoid-W+X/arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c
> >> @@ -1902,6 +1902,16 @@ void __init xen_setup_kernel_pagetable(p
> >>  	/* Graft it onto L4[511][510] */
> >>  	copy_page(level2_kernel_pgt, l2);
> >>  
> >> +	/* Zap execute permission from the ident map. Due to the sharing of
> >> +	 * L1 entries we need to do this in the L2. */
> > 
> > please use the customary (multi-line) comment style:
> > 
> >   /*
> >    * Comment .....
> >    * ...... goes here.
> >    */
> > 
> > specified in Documentation/CodingStyle.
> 
> I would have but didn't because all other comments in this function
> use this (wrong) style. I've concluded that consistency is better
> here than matching the style doc. If the Xen maintainers tell me
> otherwise, I'll happily adjust the patch.

Then it should be cleaned up in a separate patch. The file is in arch/x86/ and 
both Documentation/CodingStyle and Linus's position is pretty unambiguous on this, 
there's no special exceptions for ugliness in arch/x86/ as far as I'm concerned.

Please guys fix this mess, NAK otherwise.

Thanks,

	Ingo

Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86-64/Xen: eliminate W+X mappings

[Ingo Molnar]

* Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:

> >>> On 12.12.17 at 11:38, <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> > * Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> >> --- 4.15-rc3/arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c
> >> +++ 4.15-rc3-x86_64-Xen-avoid-W+X/arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c
> >> @@ -1902,6 +1902,16 @@ void __init xen_setup_kernel_pagetable(p
> >>  	/* Graft it onto L4[511][510] */
> >>  	copy_page(level2_kernel_pgt, l2);
> >>  
> >> +	/* Zap execute permission from the ident map. Due to the sharing of
> >> +	 * L1 entries we need to do this in the L2. */
> > 
> > please use the customary (multi-line) comment style:
> > 
> >   /*
> >    * Comment .....
> >    * ...... goes here.
> >    */
> > 
> > specified in Documentation/CodingStyle.
> 
> I would have but didn't because all other comments in this function
> use this (wrong) style. I've concluded that consistency is better
> here than matching the style doc. If the Xen maintainers tell me
> otherwise, I'll happily adjust the patch.

Then it should be cleaned up in a separate patch. The file is in arch/x86/ and 
both Documentation/CodingStyle and Linus's position is pretty unambiguous on this, 
there's no special exceptions for ugliness in arch/x86/ as far as I'm concerned.

Please guys fix this mess, NAK otherwise.

Thanks,

	Ingo

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86-64/Xen: eliminate W+X mappings

[Juergen Gross]

On 12/12/17 11:48, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 12.12.17 at 11:38, <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
>> * Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>> --- 4.15-rc3/arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c
>>> +++ 4.15-rc3-x86_64-Xen-avoid-W+X/arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c
>>> @@ -1902,6 +1902,16 @@ void __init xen_setup_kernel_pagetable(p
>>>  	/* Graft it onto L4[511][510] */
>>>  	copy_page(level2_kernel_pgt, l2);
>>>  
>>> +	/* Zap execute permission from the ident map. Due to the sharing of
>>> +	 * L1 entries we need to do this in the L2. */
>>
>> please use the customary (multi-line) comment style:
>>
>>   /*
>>    * Comment .....
>>    * ...... goes here.
>>    */
>>
>> specified in Documentation/CodingStyle.
> 
> I would have but didn't because all other comments in this function
> use this (wrong) style. I've concluded that consistency is better
> here than matching the style doc. If the Xen maintainers tell me
> otherwise, I'll happily adjust the patch.

Yes, please use the correct style with new comments.

> 
>>> +	if (__supported_pte_mask & _PAGE_NX)
>>> +		for (i = 0; i < PTRS_PER_PMD; ++i) {
>>> +			if (pmd_none(level2_ident_pgt[i]))
>>> +				continue;
>>> +			level2_ident_pgt[i] =
>>> +				pmd_set_flags(level2_ident_pgt[i], _PAGE_NX);
>>
>> So the line break here is quite distracting, especially considering how similar it 
>> is to the alignment of the 'continue' statement. I.e. visually it looks like 
>> control flow alignment.
>>
>> Would be much better to just leave it a single page and ignore checkpatch 
>> here.
> 
> Again I'll wait to see what the Xen maintainers think. I too dislike
> line splits like this one, but the line ended up quite a bit too long,
> not just a character or two. I also wasn't sure whether splitting
> between the function arguments would be okay, leaving the first
> line just slightly too long.

That would result in a 80 character line, which IMHO is the best choice
here.


Juergen

Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86-64/Xen: eliminate W+X mappings

[Juergen Gross]

On 12/12/17 11:48, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 12.12.17 at 11:38, <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
>> * Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>> --- 4.15-rc3/arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c
>>> +++ 4.15-rc3-x86_64-Xen-avoid-W+X/arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c
>>> @@ -1902,6 +1902,16 @@ void __init xen_setup_kernel_pagetable(p
>>>  	/* Graft it onto L4[511][510] */
>>>  	copy_page(level2_kernel_pgt, l2);
>>>  
>>> +	/* Zap execute permission from the ident map. Due to the sharing of
>>> +	 * L1 entries we need to do this in the L2. */
>>
>> please use the customary (multi-line) comment style:
>>
>>   /*
>>    * Comment .....
>>    * ...... goes here.
>>    */
>>
>> specified in Documentation/CodingStyle.
> 
> I would have but didn't because all other comments in this function
> use this (wrong) style. I've concluded that consistency is better
> here than matching the style doc. If the Xen maintainers tell me
> otherwise, I'll happily adjust the patch.

Yes, please use the correct style with new comments.

> 
>>> +	if (__supported_pte_mask & _PAGE_NX)
>>> +		for (i = 0; i < PTRS_PER_PMD; ++i) {
>>> +			if (pmd_none(level2_ident_pgt[i]))
>>> +				continue;
>>> +			level2_ident_pgt[i] =
>>> +				pmd_set_flags(level2_ident_pgt[i], _PAGE_NX);
>>
>> So the line break here is quite distracting, especially considering how similar it 
>> is to the alignment of the 'continue' statement. I.e. visually it looks like 
>> control flow alignment.
>>
>> Would be much better to just leave it a single page and ignore checkpatch 
>> here.
> 
> Again I'll wait to see what the Xen maintainers think. I too dislike
> line splits like this one, but the line ended up quite a bit too long,
> not just a character or two. I also wasn't sure whether splitting
> between the function arguments would be okay, leaving the first
> line just slightly too long.

That would result in a 80 character line, which IMHO is the best choice
here.


Juergen

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

[PATCH v2] x86-64/Xen: eliminate W+X mappings

[Jan Beulich]

A few thousand such pages are usually left around due to the re-use of
L1 tables having been provided by the hypervisor (Dom0) or tool stack
(DomU). Set NX in the direct map variant, which needs to be done in L2
due to the dual use of the re-used L1s.

For x86_configure_nx() to actually do what it is supposed to do, call
get_cpu_cap() first. This was broken by commit 4763ed4d45 ("x86, mm:
Clean up and simplify NX enablement") when switching away from the
direct EFER read.

Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
---
v2: Adjust comment style and indentation.
---
While I certainly dislike the added header inclusion to obtain the
prototype for get_cpu_cap(), I couldn't find a better alternative. I'm
open to suggestions.
---
 arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c |    3 +++
 arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c       |   10 ++++++++++
 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+)

--- 4.15-rc3/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c
+++ 4.15-rc3-x86_64-Xen-avoid-W+X/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c
@@ -88,6 +88,8 @@
 #include "multicalls.h"
 #include "pmu.h"
 
+#include "../kernel/cpu/cpu.h" /* get_cpu_cap() */
+
 void *xen_initial_gdt;
 
 static int xen_cpu_up_prepare_pv(unsigned int cpu);
@@ -1258,6 +1260,7 @@ asmlinkage __visible void __init xen_sta
 	__userpte_alloc_gfp &= ~__GFP_HIGHMEM;
 
 	/* Work out if we support NX */
+	get_cpu_cap(&boot_cpu_data);
 	x86_configure_nx();
 
 	/* Get mfn list */
--- 4.15-rc4/arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c
+++ 4.15-rc4-x86_64-Xen-avoid-W+X/arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c
@@ -1902,6 +1902,18 @@ void __init xen_setup_kernel_pagetable(p
 	/* Graft it onto L4[511][510] */
 	copy_page(level2_kernel_pgt, l2);
 
+	/*
+	 * Zap execute permission from the ident map. Due to the sharing of
+	 * L1 entries we need to do this in the L2.
+	 */
+	if (__supported_pte_mask & _PAGE_NX)
+		for (i = 0; i < PTRS_PER_PMD; ++i) {
+			if (pmd_none(level2_ident_pgt[i]))
+				continue;
+			level2_ident_pgt[i] = pmd_set_flags(level2_ident_pgt[i],
+							    _PAGE_NX);
+		}
+
 	/* Copy the initial P->M table mappings if necessary. */
 	i = pgd_index(xen_start_info->mfn_list);
 	if (i && i < pgd_index(__START_KERNEL_map))

Re: [PATCH v2] x86-64/Xen: eliminate W+X mappings

[Ingo Molnar]

* Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:

> A few thousand such pages are usually left around due to the re-use of
> L1 tables having been provided by the hypervisor (Dom0) or tool stack
> (DomU). Set NX in the direct map variant, which needs to be done in L2
> due to the dual use of the re-used L1s.
> 
> For x86_configure_nx() to actually do what it is supposed to do, call
> get_cpu_cap() first. This was broken by commit 4763ed4d45 ("x86, mm:
> Clean up and simplify NX enablement") when switching away from the
> direct EFER read.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> ---
> v2: Adjust comment style and indentation.
> ---
> While I certainly dislike the added header inclusion to obtain the
> prototype for get_cpu_cap(), I couldn't find a better alternative. I'm
> open to suggestions.
> ---
>  arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c |    3 +++
>  arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c       |   10 ++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 13 insertions(+)
> 
> --- 4.15-rc3/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c
> +++ 4.15-rc3-x86_64-Xen-avoid-W+X/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c
> @@ -88,6 +88,8 @@
>  #include "multicalls.h"
>  #include "pmu.h"
>  
> +#include "../kernel/cpu/cpu.h" /* get_cpu_cap() */
> +
>  void *xen_initial_gdt;
>  
>  static int xen_cpu_up_prepare_pv(unsigned int cpu);
> @@ -1258,6 +1260,7 @@ asmlinkage __visible void __init xen_sta
>  	__userpte_alloc_gfp &= ~__GFP_HIGHMEM;
>  
>  	/* Work out if we support NX */
> +	get_cpu_cap(&boot_cpu_data);
>  	x86_configure_nx();
>  
>  	/* Get mfn list */
> --- 4.15-rc4/arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c
> +++ 4.15-rc4-x86_64-Xen-avoid-W+X/arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c
> @@ -1902,6 +1902,18 @@ void __init xen_setup_kernel_pagetable(p
>  	/* Graft it onto L4[511][510] */
>  	copy_page(level2_kernel_pgt, l2);
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * Zap execute permission from the ident map. Due to the sharing of
> +	 * L1 entries we need to do this in the L2.
> +	 */
> +	if (__supported_pte_mask & _PAGE_NX)
> +		for (i = 0; i < PTRS_PER_PMD; ++i) {
> +			if (pmd_none(level2_ident_pgt[i]))
> +				continue;
> +			level2_ident_pgt[i] = pmd_set_flags(level2_ident_pgt[i],
> +							    _PAGE_NX);
> +		}
> +

This chunk has two stylistic problems:

 - Curly braces need to be added
 - Line broken in an ugly fashion: just make it long and ignore the checkpatch col80 warning

looks good otherwise.

Thanks,

	Ingo

Re: [PATCH v2] x86-64/Xen: eliminate W+X mappings

[Joe Perches]

On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 13:28 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> 
> > A few thousand such pages are usually left around due to the re-use of
> > L1 tables having been provided by the hypervisor (Dom0) or tool stack
> > (DomU). Set NX in the direct map variant, which needs to be done in L2
> > due to the dual use of the re-used L1s.
> > 
> > For x86_configure_nx() to actually do what it is supposed to do, call
> > get_cpu_cap() first. This was broken by commit 4763ed4d45 ("x86, mm:
> > Clean up and simplify NX enablement") when switching away from the
> > direct EFER read.
[]
> > --- 4.15-rc4/arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c
> > +++ 4.15-rc4-x86_64-Xen-avoid-W+X/arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c
> > @@ -1902,6 +1902,18 @@ void __init xen_setup_kernel_pagetable(p
> >  	/* Graft it onto L4[511][510] */
> >  	copy_page(level2_kernel_pgt, l2);
> >  
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Zap execute permission from the ident map. Due to the sharing of
> > +	 * L1 entries we need to do this in the L2.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (__supported_pte_mask & _PAGE_NX)
> > +		for (i = 0; i < PTRS_PER_PMD; ++i) {
> > +			if (pmd_none(level2_ident_pgt[i]))
> > +				continue;
> > +			level2_ident_pgt[i] = pmd_set_flags(level2_ident_pgt[i],
> > +							    _PAGE_NX);
> > +		}
> > +
> 
> This chunk has two stylistic problems:
> 
>  - Curly braces need to be added
>  - Line broken in an ugly fashion: just make it long and ignore the checkpatch col80 warning
> 
> looks good otherwise.

stylistic trivia:

Instead of repeating level2_ident_pgt[i] multiple times,
it might be nicer to use temporaries and not use i at all.

Something like:

	if (__supported_pte_mask & _PAGE_NX) {
		pmd_t *pmd = level2_ident_pgt;
		pmd_t *end = pmd + PTRS_PER_PMD;

		for (; pmd < end; pmd++) {
			if (!pmd_none(pmd))
				*pmd = pmd_set_flags(pmd, _PAGE_NX);
		}
	}


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [PATCH v2] x86-64/Xen: eliminate W+X mappings

[Joe Perches]

On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 13:28 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> 
> > A few thousand such pages are usually left around due to the re-use of
> > L1 tables having been provided by the hypervisor (Dom0) or tool stack
> > (DomU). Set NX in the direct map variant, which needs to be done in L2
> > due to the dual use of the re-used L1s.
> > 
> > For x86_configure_nx() to actually do what it is supposed to do, call
> > get_cpu_cap() first. This was broken by commit 4763ed4d45 ("x86, mm:
> > Clean up and simplify NX enablement") when switching away from the
> > direct EFER read.
[]
> > --- 4.15-rc4/arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c
> > +++ 4.15-rc4-x86_64-Xen-avoid-W+X/arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c
> > @@ -1902,6 +1902,18 @@ void __init xen_setup_kernel_pagetable(p
> >  	/* Graft it onto L4[511][510] */
> >  	copy_page(level2_kernel_pgt, l2);
> >  
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Zap execute permission from the ident map. Due to the sharing of
> > +	 * L1 entries we need to do this in the L2.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (__supported_pte_mask & _PAGE_NX)
> > +		for (i = 0; i < PTRS_PER_PMD; ++i) {
> > +			if (pmd_none(level2_ident_pgt[i]))
> > +				continue;
> > +			level2_ident_pgt[i] = pmd_set_flags(level2_ident_pgt[i],
> > +							    _PAGE_NX);
> > +		}
> > +
> 
> This chunk has two stylistic problems:
> 
>  - Curly braces need to be added
>  - Line broken in an ugly fashion: just make it long and ignore the checkpatch col80 warning
> 
> looks good otherwise.

stylistic trivia:

Instead of repeating level2_ident_pgt[i] multiple times,
it might be nicer to use temporaries and not use i at all.

Something like:

	if (__supported_pte_mask & _PAGE_NX) {
		pmd_t *pmd = level2_ident_pgt;
		pmd_t *end = pmd + PTRS_PER_PMD;

		for (; pmd < end; pmd++) {
			if (!pmd_none(pmd))
				*pmd = pmd_set_flags(pmd, _PAGE_NX);
		}
	}

Re: [PATCH v2] x86-64/Xen: eliminate W+X mappings

[Ingo Molnar]

* Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:

> A few thousand such pages are usually left around due to the re-use of
> L1 tables having been provided by the hypervisor (Dom0) or tool stack
> (DomU). Set NX in the direct map variant, which needs to be done in L2
> due to the dual use of the re-used L1s.
> 
> For x86_configure_nx() to actually do what it is supposed to do, call
> get_cpu_cap() first. This was broken by commit 4763ed4d45 ("x86, mm:
> Clean up and simplify NX enablement") when switching away from the
> direct EFER read.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> ---
> v2: Adjust comment style and indentation.
> ---
> While I certainly dislike the added header inclusion to obtain the
> prototype for get_cpu_cap(), I couldn't find a better alternative. I'm
> open to suggestions.
> ---
>  arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c |    3 +++
>  arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c       |   10 ++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 13 insertions(+)
> 
> --- 4.15-rc3/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c
> +++ 4.15-rc3-x86_64-Xen-avoid-W+X/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c
> @@ -88,6 +88,8 @@
>  #include "multicalls.h"
>  #include "pmu.h"
>  
> +#include "../kernel/cpu/cpu.h" /* get_cpu_cap() */
> +
>  void *xen_initial_gdt;
>  
>  static int xen_cpu_up_prepare_pv(unsigned int cpu);
> @@ -1258,6 +1260,7 @@ asmlinkage __visible void __init xen_sta
>  	__userpte_alloc_gfp &= ~__GFP_HIGHMEM;
>  
>  	/* Work out if we support NX */
> +	get_cpu_cap(&boot_cpu_data);
>  	x86_configure_nx();
>  
>  	/* Get mfn list */
> --- 4.15-rc4/arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c
> +++ 4.15-rc4-x86_64-Xen-avoid-W+X/arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c
> @@ -1902,6 +1902,18 @@ void __init xen_setup_kernel_pagetable(p
>  	/* Graft it onto L4[511][510] */
>  	copy_page(level2_kernel_pgt, l2);
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * Zap execute permission from the ident map. Due to the sharing of
> +	 * L1 entries we need to do this in the L2.
> +	 */
> +	if (__supported_pte_mask & _PAGE_NX)
> +		for (i = 0; i < PTRS_PER_PMD; ++i) {
> +			if (pmd_none(level2_ident_pgt[i]))
> +				continue;
> +			level2_ident_pgt[i] = pmd_set_flags(level2_ident_pgt[i],
> +							    _PAGE_NX);
> +		}
> +

This chunk has two stylistic problems:

 - Curly braces need to be added
 - Line broken in an ugly fashion: just make it long and ignore the checkpatch col80 warning

looks good otherwise.

Thanks,

	Ingo

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

[PATCH v2] x86-64/Xen: eliminate W+X mappings

[Jan Beulich]

A few thousand such pages are usually left around due to the re-use of
L1 tables having been provided by the hypervisor (Dom0) or tool stack
(DomU). Set NX in the direct map variant, which needs to be done in L2
due to the dual use of the re-used L1s.

For x86_configure_nx() to actually do what it is supposed to do, call
get_cpu_cap() first. This was broken by commit 4763ed4d45 ("x86, mm:
Clean up and simplify NX enablement") when switching away from the
direct EFER read.

Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
---
v2: Adjust comment style and indentation.
---
While I certainly dislike the added header inclusion to obtain the
prototype for get_cpu_cap(), I couldn't find a better alternative. I'm
open to suggestions.
---
 arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c |    3 +++
 arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c       |   10 ++++++++++
 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+)

--- 4.15-rc3/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c
+++ 4.15-rc3-x86_64-Xen-avoid-W+X/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c
@@ -88,6 +88,8 @@
 #include "multicalls.h"
 #include "pmu.h"
 
+#include "../kernel/cpu/cpu.h" /* get_cpu_cap() */
+
 void *xen_initial_gdt;
 
 static int xen_cpu_up_prepare_pv(unsigned int cpu);
@@ -1258,6 +1260,7 @@ asmlinkage __visible void __init xen_sta
 	__userpte_alloc_gfp &= ~__GFP_HIGHMEM;
 
 	/* Work out if we support NX */
+	get_cpu_cap(&boot_cpu_data);
 	x86_configure_nx();
 
 	/* Get mfn list */
--- 4.15-rc4/arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c
+++ 4.15-rc4-x86_64-Xen-avoid-W+X/arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c
@@ -1902,6 +1902,18 @@ void __init xen_setup_kernel_pagetable(p
 	/* Graft it onto L4[511][510] */
 	copy_page(level2_kernel_pgt, l2);
 
+	/*
+	 * Zap execute permission from the ident map. Due to the sharing of
+	 * L1 entries we need to do this in the L2.
+	 */
+	if (__supported_pte_mask & _PAGE_NX)
+		for (i = 0; i < PTRS_PER_PMD; ++i) {
+			if (pmd_none(level2_ident_pgt[i]))
+				continue;
+			level2_ident_pgt[i] = pmd_set_flags(level2_ident_pgt[i],
+							    _PAGE_NX);
+		}
+
 	/* Copy the initial P->M table mappings if necessary. */
 	i = pgd_index(xen_start_info->mfn_list);
 	if (i && i < pgd_index(__START_KERNEL_map))




_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

[PATCH v3] x86-64/Xen: eliminate W+X mappings

[Jan Beulich]

A few thousand such pages are usually left around due to the re-use of
L1 tables having been provided by the hypervisor (Dom0) or tool stack
(DomU). Set NX in the direct map variant, which needs to be done in L2
due to the dual use of the re-used L1s.

For x86_configure_nx() to actually do what it is supposed to do, call
get_cpu_cap() first. This was broken by commit 4763ed4d45 ("x86, mm:
Clean up and simplify NX enablement") when switching away from the
direct EFER read.

Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
---
v3: More style adjustment.
v2: Adjust comment style and indentation.
---
 arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c |    3 +++
 arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c       |   10 ++++++++++
 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+)

--- 4.15-rc3/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c
+++ 4.15-rc3-x86_64-Xen-avoid-W+X/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c
@@ -88,6 +88,8 @@
 #include "multicalls.h"
 #include "pmu.h"
 
+#include "../kernel/cpu/cpu.h" /* get_cpu_cap() */
+
 void *xen_initial_gdt;
 
 static int xen_cpu_up_prepare_pv(unsigned int cpu);
@@ -1258,6 +1260,7 @@ asmlinkage __visible void __init xen_sta
 	__userpte_alloc_gfp &= ~__GFP_HIGHMEM;
 
 	/* Work out if we support NX */
+	get_cpu_cap(&boot_cpu_data);
 	x86_configure_nx();
 
 	/* Get mfn list */
--- 4.15-rc4/arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c
+++ 4.15-rc4-x86_64-Xen-avoid-W+X/arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c
@@ -1902,6 +1902,18 @@ void __init xen_setup_kernel_pagetable(p
 	/* Graft it onto L4[511][510] */
 	copy_page(level2_kernel_pgt, l2);
 
+	/*
+	 * Zap execute permission from the ident map. Due to the sharing of
+	 * L1 entries we need to do this in the L2.
+	 */
+	if (__supported_pte_mask & _PAGE_NX) {
+		for (i = 0; i < PTRS_PER_PMD; ++i) {
+			if (pmd_none(level2_ident_pgt[i]))
+				continue;
+			level2_ident_pgt[i] = pmd_set_flags(level2_ident_pgt[i], _PAGE_NX);
+		}
+	}
+
 	/* Copy the initial P->M table mappings if necessary. */
 	i = pgd_index(xen_start_info->mfn_list);
 	if (i && i < pgd_index(__START_KERNEL_map))

[PATCH v3] x86-64/Xen: eliminate W+X mappings

[Jan Beulich]

A few thousand such pages are usually left around due to the re-use of
L1 tables having been provided by the hypervisor (Dom0) or tool stack
(DomU). Set NX in the direct map variant, which needs to be done in L2
due to the dual use of the re-used L1s.

For x86_configure_nx() to actually do what it is supposed to do, call
get_cpu_cap() first. This was broken by commit 4763ed4d45 ("x86, mm:
Clean up and simplify NX enablement") when switching away from the
direct EFER read.

Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
---
v3: More style adjustment.
v2: Adjust comment style and indentation.
---
 arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c |    3 +++
 arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c       |   10 ++++++++++
 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+)

--- 4.15-rc3/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c
+++ 4.15-rc3-x86_64-Xen-avoid-W+X/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c
@@ -88,6 +88,8 @@
 #include "multicalls.h"
 #include "pmu.h"
 
+#include "../kernel/cpu/cpu.h" /* get_cpu_cap() */
+
 void *xen_initial_gdt;
 
 static int xen_cpu_up_prepare_pv(unsigned int cpu);
@@ -1258,6 +1260,7 @@ asmlinkage __visible void __init xen_sta
 	__userpte_alloc_gfp &= ~__GFP_HIGHMEM;
 
 	/* Work out if we support NX */
+	get_cpu_cap(&boot_cpu_data);
 	x86_configure_nx();
 
 	/* Get mfn list */
--- 4.15-rc4/arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c
+++ 4.15-rc4-x86_64-Xen-avoid-W+X/arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c
@@ -1902,6 +1902,18 @@ void __init xen_setup_kernel_pagetable(p
 	/* Graft it onto L4[511][510] */
 	copy_page(level2_kernel_pgt, l2);
 
+	/*
+	 * Zap execute permission from the ident map. Due to the sharing of
+	 * L1 entries we need to do this in the L2.
+	 */
+	if (__supported_pte_mask & _PAGE_NX) {
+		for (i = 0; i < PTRS_PER_PMD; ++i) {
+			if (pmd_none(level2_ident_pgt[i]))
+				continue;
+			level2_ident_pgt[i] = pmd_set_flags(level2_ident_pgt[i], _PAGE_NX);
+		}
+	}
+
 	/* Copy the initial P->M table mappings if necessary. */
 	i = pgd_index(xen_start_info->mfn_list);
 	if (i && i < pgd_index(__START_KERNEL_map))




_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

[PATCH 2/2] x86-64/Xen: eliminate W+X mappings

[Jan Beulich]

A few thousand such pages are usually left around due to the re-use of
L1 tables having been provided by the hypervisor (Dom0) or tool stack
(DomU). Set NX in the direct map variant, which needs to be done in L2
due to the dual use of the re-used L1s.

For x86_configure_nx() to actually do what it is supposed to do, call
get_cpu_cap() first. This was broken by commit 4763ed4d45 ("x86, mm:
Clean up and simplify NX enablement") when switching away from the
direct EFER read.

Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
---
While I certainly dislike the added header inclusion to obtain the
prototype for get_cpu_cap(), I couldn't find a better alternative. I'm
open to suggestions.
---
 arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c |    3 +++
 arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c       |   10 ++++++++++
 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+)

--- 4.15-rc3/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c
+++ 4.15-rc3-x86_64-Xen-avoid-W+X/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c
@@ -88,6 +88,8 @@
 #include "multicalls.h"
 #include "pmu.h"
 
+#include "../kernel/cpu/cpu.h" /* get_cpu_cap() */
+
 void *xen_initial_gdt;
 
 static int xen_cpu_up_prepare_pv(unsigned int cpu);
@@ -1258,6 +1260,7 @@ asmlinkage __visible void __init xen_sta
 	__userpte_alloc_gfp &= ~__GFP_HIGHMEM;
 
 	/* Work out if we support NX */
+	get_cpu_cap(&boot_cpu_data);
 	x86_configure_nx();
 
 	/* Get mfn list */
--- 4.15-rc3/arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c
+++ 4.15-rc3-x86_64-Xen-avoid-W+X/arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c
@@ -1902,6 +1902,16 @@ void __init xen_setup_kernel_pagetable(p
 	/* Graft it onto L4[511][510] */
 	copy_page(level2_kernel_pgt, l2);
 
+	/* Zap execute permission from the ident map. Due to the sharing of
+	 * L1 entries we need to do this in the L2. */
+	if (__supported_pte_mask & _PAGE_NX)
+		for (i = 0; i < PTRS_PER_PMD; ++i) {
+			if (pmd_none(level2_ident_pgt[i]))
+				continue;
+			level2_ident_pgt[i] =
+				pmd_set_flags(level2_ident_pgt[i], _PAGE_NX);
+		}
+
 	/* Copy the initial P->M table mappings if necessary. */
 	i = pgd_index(xen_start_info->mfn_list);
 	if (i && i < pgd_index(__START_KERNEL_map))




_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: consider effective protection attributes in W+X check

[Juergen Gross]

On 12/12/17 11:31, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Using just the leaf page table entry flags would cause a false warning
> in case _PAGE_RW is clear or _PAGE_NX is set in a higher level entry.
> Hand through both the current entry's flags as well as the accumulated
> effective value (the latter as pgprotval_t instead of pgprot_t, as it's
> not an actual entry's value).
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/mm/dump_pagetables.c |   92 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
>  1 file changed, 57 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
> 
> --- 4.15-rc3/arch/x86/mm/dump_pagetables.c
> +++ 4.15-rc3-x86-dumppgt-effective-prot/arch/x86/mm/dump_pagetables.c
> @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@
>  struct pg_state {
>  	int level;
>  	pgprot_t current_prot;
> +	pgprotval_t effective_prot;
>  	unsigned long start_address;
>  	unsigned long current_address;
>  	const struct addr_marker *marker;
> @@ -202,9 +203,9 @@ static unsigned long normalize_addr(unsi
>   * print what we collected so far.
>   */
>  static void note_page(struct seq_file *m, struct pg_state *st,
> -		      pgprot_t new_prot, int level)
> +		      pgprot_t new_prot, pgprotval_t new_eff, int level)
>  {
> -	pgprotval_t prot, cur;
> +	pgprotval_t prot, cur, eff;
>  	static const char units[] = "BKMGTPE";
>  
>  	/*
> @@ -214,23 +215,24 @@ static void note_page(struct seq_file *m
>  	 */
>  	prot = pgprot_val(new_prot);
>  	cur = pgprot_val(st->current_prot);
> +	eff = st->effective_prot;
>  
>  	if (!st->level) {
>  		/* First entry */
>  		st->current_prot = new_prot;
> +		st->effective_prot = new_eff;
>  		st->level = level;
>  		st->marker = address_markers;
>  		st->lines = 0;
>  		pt_dump_seq_printf(m, st->to_dmesg, "---[ %s ]---\n",
>  				   st->marker->name);
> -	} else if (prot != cur || level != st->level ||
> +	} else if (prot != cur || new_eff != eff || level != st->level ||
>  		   st->current_address >= st->marker[1].start_address) {
>  		const char *unit = units;
>  		unsigned long delta;
>  		int width = sizeof(unsigned long) * 2;
> -		pgprotval_t pr = pgprot_val(st->current_prot);
>  
> -		if (st->check_wx && (pr & _PAGE_RW) && !(pr & _PAGE_NX)) {
> +		if (st->check_wx && (eff & _PAGE_RW) && !(eff & _PAGE_NX)) {
>  			WARN_ONCE(1,
>  				  "x86/mm: Found insecure W+X mapping at address %p/%pS\n",
>  				  (void *)st->start_address,
> @@ -284,21 +286,30 @@ static void note_page(struct seq_file *m
>  
>  		st->start_address = st->current_address;
>  		st->current_prot = new_prot;
> +		st->effective_prot = new_eff;
>  		st->level = level;
>  	}
>  }
>  
> -static void walk_pte_level(struct seq_file *m, struct pg_state *st, pmd_t addr, unsigned long P)
> +static inline pgprotval_t effective_prot(pgprotval_t prot1, pgprotval_t prot2)
> +{
> +	return (prot1 & prot2 & (_PAGE_USER | _PAGE_RW)) |
> +	       ((prot1 | prot2) & _PAGE_NX);
> +}
> +
> +static void walk_pte_level(struct seq_file *m, struct pg_state *st, pmd_t addr,
> +			   pgprotval_t eff_in, unsigned long P)
>  {
>  	int i;
>  	pte_t *start;
> -	pgprotval_t prot;
> +	pgprotval_t prot, eff;
>  
>  	start = (pte_t *)pmd_page_vaddr(addr);
>  	for (i = 0; i < PTRS_PER_PTE; i++) {
>  		prot = pte_flags(*start);
> +		eff = effective_prot(eff_in, prot);
>  		st->current_address = normalize_addr(P + i * PTE_LEVEL_MULT);
> -		note_page(m, st, __pgprot(prot), 5);
> +		note_page(m, st, __pgprot(prot), eff, 5);
>  		start++;
>  	}
>  }
> @@ -335,42 +346,45 @@ static inline bool kasan_page_table(stru
>  
>  #if PTRS_PER_PMD > 1
>  
> -static void walk_pmd_level(struct seq_file *m, struct pg_state *st, pud_t addr, unsigned long P)
> +static void walk_pmd_level(struct seq_file *m, struct pg_state *st, pud_t addr,
> +			   pgprotval_t eff_in, unsigned long P)
>  {
>  	int i;
>  	pmd_t *start, *pmd_start;
> -	pgprotval_t prot;
> +	pgprotval_t prot, eff;
>  
>  	pmd_start = start = (pmd_t *)pud_page_vaddr(addr);
>  	for (i = 0; i < PTRS_PER_PMD; i++) {
>  		st->current_address = normalize_addr(P + i * PMD_LEVEL_MULT);
>  		if (!pmd_none(*start)) {
> +			prot = pmd_flags(*start);
> +			eff = effective_prot(eff_in, prot);
>  			if (pmd_large(*start) || !pmd_present(*start)) {
> -				prot = pmd_flags(*start);
> -				note_page(m, st, __pgprot(prot), 4);
> +				note_page(m, st, __pgprot(prot), eff, 4);
>  			} else if (!kasan_page_table(m, st, pmd_start)) {
> -				walk_pte_level(m, st, *start,
> +				walk_pte_level(m, st, *start, eff,
>  					       P + i * PMD_LEVEL_MULT);
>  			}

You can drop the braces for both cases. Applies to similar
constructs below, too.

With that fixed you can add my:

Reviewed-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>


Juergen

Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: consider effective protection attributes in W+X check

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2017, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 12/12/17 11:31, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >  	for (i = 0; i < PTRS_PER_PMD; i++) {
> >  		st->current_address = normalize_addr(P + i * PMD_LEVEL_MULT);
> >  		if (!pmd_none(*start)) {
> > +			prot = pmd_flags(*start);
> > +			eff = effective_prot(eff_in, prot);
> >  			if (pmd_large(*start) || !pmd_present(*start)) {
> > -				prot = pmd_flags(*start);
> > -				note_page(m, st, __pgprot(prot), 4);
> > +				note_page(m, st, __pgprot(prot), eff, 4);
> >  			} else if (!kasan_page_table(m, st, pmd_start)) {
> > -				walk_pte_level(m, st, *start,
> > +				walk_pte_level(m, st, *start, eff,
> >  					       P + i * PMD_LEVEL_MULT);
> >  			}
> 
> You can drop the braces for both cases. Applies to similar
> constructs below, too.

No. See: https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=148467980905537

This is the same issue:

	if (foo)
		bla();
	else
		blurb(somestuff, morestuff, evenmorestuff,
		      crap);
vs.

	if (foo) {
		bla();
	} else {
		blurb(somestuff, morestuff, evenmorestuff,
		      crap);
	}

Thanks,

	tglx

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: consider effective protection attributes in W+X check

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2017, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 12/12/17 11:31, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >  	for (i = 0; i < PTRS_PER_PMD; i++) {
> >  		st->current_address = normalize_addr(P + i * PMD_LEVEL_MULT);
> >  		if (!pmd_none(*start)) {
> > +			prot = pmd_flags(*start);
> > +			eff = effective_prot(eff_in, prot);
> >  			if (pmd_large(*start) || !pmd_present(*start)) {
> > -				prot = pmd_flags(*start);
> > -				note_page(m, st, __pgprot(prot), 4);
> > +				note_page(m, st, __pgprot(prot), eff, 4);
> >  			} else if (!kasan_page_table(m, st, pmd_start)) {
> > -				walk_pte_level(m, st, *start,
> > +				walk_pte_level(m, st, *start, eff,
> >  					       P + i * PMD_LEVEL_MULT);
> >  			}
> 
> You can drop the braces for both cases. Applies to similar
> constructs below, too.

No. See: https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=148467980905537

This is the same issue:

	if (foo)
		bla();
	else
		blurb(somestuff, morestuff, evenmorestuff,
		      crap);
vs.

	if (foo) {
		bla();
	} else {
		blurb(somestuff, morestuff, evenmorestuff,
		      crap);
	}

Thanks,

	tglx

Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: consider effective protection attributes in W+X check

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 14.12.17 at 15:04, <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
> On 12/12/17 11:31, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> @@ -335,42 +346,45 @@ static inline bool kasan_page_table(stru
>>  
>>  #if PTRS_PER_PMD > 1
>>  
>> -static void walk_pmd_level(struct seq_file *m, struct pg_state *st, pud_t addr, unsigned long P)
>> +static void walk_pmd_level(struct seq_file *m, struct pg_state *st, pud_t addr,
>> +			   pgprotval_t eff_in, unsigned long P)
>>  {
>>  	int i;
>>  	pmd_t *start, *pmd_start;
>> -	pgprotval_t prot;
>> +	pgprotval_t prot, eff;
>>  
>>  	pmd_start = start = (pmd_t *)pud_page_vaddr(addr);
>>  	for (i = 0; i < PTRS_PER_PMD; i++) {
>>  		st->current_address = normalize_addr(P + i * PMD_LEVEL_MULT);
>>  		if (!pmd_none(*start)) {
>> +			prot = pmd_flags(*start);
>> +			eff = effective_prot(eff_in, prot);
>>  			if (pmd_large(*start) || !pmd_present(*start)) {
>> -				prot = pmd_flags(*start);
>> -				note_page(m, st, __pgprot(prot), 4);
>> +				note_page(m, st, __pgprot(prot), eff, 4);
>>  			} else if (!kasan_page_table(m, st, pmd_start)) {
>> -				walk_pte_level(m, st, *start,
>> +				walk_pte_level(m, st, *start, eff,
>>  					       P + i * PMD_LEVEL_MULT);
>>  			}
> 
> You can drop the braces for both cases. Applies to similar
> constructs below, too.

I did consider that, but decided against to allow the patch to show
more clearly what it is that is actually being changed.

> With that fixed you can add my:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>

Thanks. I'd like to wait for the x86 maintainer's opinion, and hence
won't add your R-b unless you tell me that's fine either way, or
unless they too would prefer resulting code cleanliness over patch
readability.

Jan

Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: consider effective protection attributes in W+X check

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2017, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 14.12.17 at 15:04, <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
> > On 12/12/17 11:31, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> @@ -335,42 +346,45 @@ static inline bool kasan_page_table(stru
> >>  
> >>  #if PTRS_PER_PMD > 1
> >>  
> >> -static void walk_pmd_level(struct seq_file *m, struct pg_state *st, pud_t addr, unsigned long P)
> >> +static void walk_pmd_level(struct seq_file *m, struct pg_state *st, pud_t addr,
> >> +			   pgprotval_t eff_in, unsigned long P)
> >>  {
> >>  	int i;
> >>  	pmd_t *start, *pmd_start;
> >> -	pgprotval_t prot;
> >> +	pgprotval_t prot, eff;
> >>  
> >>  	pmd_start = start = (pmd_t *)pud_page_vaddr(addr);
> >>  	for (i = 0; i < PTRS_PER_PMD; i++) {
> >>  		st->current_address = normalize_addr(P + i * PMD_LEVEL_MULT);
> >>  		if (!pmd_none(*start)) {
> >> +			prot = pmd_flags(*start);
> >> +			eff = effective_prot(eff_in, prot);
> >>  			if (pmd_large(*start) || !pmd_present(*start)) {
> >> -				prot = pmd_flags(*start);
> >> -				note_page(m, st, __pgprot(prot), 4);
> >> +				note_page(m, st, __pgprot(prot), eff, 4);
> >>  			} else if (!kasan_page_table(m, st, pmd_start)) {
> >> -				walk_pte_level(m, st, *start,
> >> +				walk_pte_level(m, st, *start, eff,
> >>  					       P + i * PMD_LEVEL_MULT);
> >>  			}
> > 
> > You can drop the braces for both cases. Applies to similar
> > constructs below, too.
> 
> I did consider that, but decided against to allow the patch to show
> more clearly what it is that is actually being changed.
> 
> > With that fixed you can add my:
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
> 
> Thanks. I'd like to wait for the x86 maintainer's opinion, and hence
> won't add your R-b unless you tell me that's fine either way, or
> unless they too would prefer resulting code cleanliness over patch
> readability.

If you remove the braces the code readability degrades because it's not a
single line statement.

Thanks,

	tglx

Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: consider effective protection attributes in W+X check

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2017, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 14.12.17 at 15:04, <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
> > On 12/12/17 11:31, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> @@ -335,42 +346,45 @@ static inline bool kasan_page_table(stru
> >>  
> >>  #if PTRS_PER_PMD > 1
> >>  
> >> -static void walk_pmd_level(struct seq_file *m, struct pg_state *st, pud_t addr, unsigned long P)
> >> +static void walk_pmd_level(struct seq_file *m, struct pg_state *st, pud_t addr,
> >> +			   pgprotval_t eff_in, unsigned long P)
> >>  {
> >>  	int i;
> >>  	pmd_t *start, *pmd_start;
> >> -	pgprotval_t prot;
> >> +	pgprotval_t prot, eff;
> >>  
> >>  	pmd_start = start = (pmd_t *)pud_page_vaddr(addr);
> >>  	for (i = 0; i < PTRS_PER_PMD; i++) {
> >>  		st->current_address = normalize_addr(P + i * PMD_LEVEL_MULT);
> >>  		if (!pmd_none(*start)) {
> >> +			prot = pmd_flags(*start);
> >> +			eff = effective_prot(eff_in, prot);
> >>  			if (pmd_large(*start) || !pmd_present(*start)) {
> >> -				prot = pmd_flags(*start);
> >> -				note_page(m, st, __pgprot(prot), 4);
> >> +				note_page(m, st, __pgprot(prot), eff, 4);
> >>  			} else if (!kasan_page_table(m, st, pmd_start)) {
> >> -				walk_pte_level(m, st, *start,
> >> +				walk_pte_level(m, st, *start, eff,
> >>  					       P + i * PMD_LEVEL_MULT);
> >>  			}
> > 
> > You can drop the braces for both cases. Applies to similar
> > constructs below, too.
> 
> I did consider that, but decided against to allow the patch to show
> more clearly what it is that is actually being changed.
> 
> > With that fixed you can add my:
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
> 
> Thanks. I'd like to wait for the x86 maintainer's opinion, and hence
> won't add your R-b unless you tell me that's fine either way, or
> unless they too would prefer resulting code cleanliness over patch
> readability.

If you remove the braces the code readability degrades because it's not a
single line statement.

Thanks,

	tglx

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: consider effective protection attributes in W+X check

[Juergen Gross]

On 14/12/17 15:15, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 14.12.17 at 15:04, <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>> On 12/12/17 11:31, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> @@ -335,42 +346,45 @@ static inline bool kasan_page_table(stru
>>>  
>>>  #if PTRS_PER_PMD > 1
>>>  
>>> -static void walk_pmd_level(struct seq_file *m, struct pg_state *st, pud_t addr, unsigned long P)
>>> +static void walk_pmd_level(struct seq_file *m, struct pg_state *st, pud_t addr,
>>> +			   pgprotval_t eff_in, unsigned long P)
>>>  {
>>>  	int i;
>>>  	pmd_t *start, *pmd_start;
>>> -	pgprotval_t prot;
>>> +	pgprotval_t prot, eff;
>>>  
>>>  	pmd_start = start = (pmd_t *)pud_page_vaddr(addr);
>>>  	for (i = 0; i < PTRS_PER_PMD; i++) {
>>>  		st->current_address = normalize_addr(P + i * PMD_LEVEL_MULT);
>>>  		if (!pmd_none(*start)) {
>>> +			prot = pmd_flags(*start);
>>> +			eff = effective_prot(eff_in, prot);
>>>  			if (pmd_large(*start) || !pmd_present(*start)) {
>>> -				prot = pmd_flags(*start);
>>> -				note_page(m, st, __pgprot(prot), 4);
>>> +				note_page(m, st, __pgprot(prot), eff, 4);
>>>  			} else if (!kasan_page_table(m, st, pmd_start)) {
>>> -				walk_pte_level(m, st, *start,
>>> +				walk_pte_level(m, st, *start, eff,
>>>  					       P + i * PMD_LEVEL_MULT);
>>>  			}
>>
>> You can drop the braces for both cases. Applies to similar
>> constructs below, too.
> 
> I did consider that, but decided against to allow the patch to show
> more clearly what it is that is actually being changed.
> 
>> With that fixed you can add my:
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
> 
> Thanks. I'd like to wait for the x86 maintainer's opinion, and hence
> won't add your R-b unless you tell me that's fine either way, or
> unless they too would prefer resulting code cleanliness over patch
> readability.

I'm fine with the braces kept, too.


Juergen

Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: consider effective protection attributes in W+X check

[Juergen Gross]

On 14/12/17 15:15, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 14.12.17 at 15:04, <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>> On 12/12/17 11:31, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> @@ -335,42 +346,45 @@ static inline bool kasan_page_table(stru
>>>  
>>>  #if PTRS_PER_PMD > 1
>>>  
>>> -static void walk_pmd_level(struct seq_file *m, struct pg_state *st, pud_t addr, unsigned long P)
>>> +static void walk_pmd_level(struct seq_file *m, struct pg_state *st, pud_t addr,
>>> +			   pgprotval_t eff_in, unsigned long P)
>>>  {
>>>  	int i;
>>>  	pmd_t *start, *pmd_start;
>>> -	pgprotval_t prot;
>>> +	pgprotval_t prot, eff;
>>>  
>>>  	pmd_start = start = (pmd_t *)pud_page_vaddr(addr);
>>>  	for (i = 0; i < PTRS_PER_PMD; i++) {
>>>  		st->current_address = normalize_addr(P + i * PMD_LEVEL_MULT);
>>>  		if (!pmd_none(*start)) {
>>> +			prot = pmd_flags(*start);
>>> +			eff = effective_prot(eff_in, prot);
>>>  			if (pmd_large(*start) || !pmd_present(*start)) {
>>> -				prot = pmd_flags(*start);
>>> -				note_page(m, st, __pgprot(prot), 4);
>>> +				note_page(m, st, __pgprot(prot), eff, 4);
>>>  			} else if (!kasan_page_table(m, st, pmd_start)) {
>>> -				walk_pte_level(m, st, *start,
>>> +				walk_pte_level(m, st, *start, eff,
>>>  					       P + i * PMD_LEVEL_MULT);
>>>  			}
>>
>> You can drop the braces for both cases. Applies to similar
>> constructs below, too.
> 
> I did consider that, but decided against to allow the patch to show
> more clearly what it is that is actually being changed.
> 
>> With that fixed you can add my:
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
> 
> Thanks. I'd like to wait for the x86 maintainer's opinion, and hence
> won't add your R-b unless you tell me that's fine either way, or
> unless they too would prefer resulting code cleanliness over patch
> readability.

I'm fine with the braces kept, too.


Juergen

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: consider effective protection attributes in W+X check

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 14.12.17 at 15:04, <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
> On 12/12/17 11:31, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> @@ -335,42 +346,45 @@ static inline bool kasan_page_table(stru
>>  
>>  #if PTRS_PER_PMD > 1
>>  
>> -static void walk_pmd_level(struct seq_file *m, struct pg_state *st, pud_t addr, unsigned long P)
>> +static void walk_pmd_level(struct seq_file *m, struct pg_state *st, pud_t addr,
>> +			   pgprotval_t eff_in, unsigned long P)
>>  {
>>  	int i;
>>  	pmd_t *start, *pmd_start;
>> -	pgprotval_t prot;
>> +	pgprotval_t prot, eff;
>>  
>>  	pmd_start = start = (pmd_t *)pud_page_vaddr(addr);
>>  	for (i = 0; i < PTRS_PER_PMD; i++) {
>>  		st->current_address = normalize_addr(P + i * PMD_LEVEL_MULT);
>>  		if (!pmd_none(*start)) {
>> +			prot = pmd_flags(*start);
>> +			eff = effective_prot(eff_in, prot);
>>  			if (pmd_large(*start) || !pmd_present(*start)) {
>> -				prot = pmd_flags(*start);
>> -				note_page(m, st, __pgprot(prot), 4);
>> +				note_page(m, st, __pgprot(prot), eff, 4);
>>  			} else if (!kasan_page_table(m, st, pmd_start)) {
>> -				walk_pte_level(m, st, *start,
>> +				walk_pte_level(m, st, *start, eff,
>>  					       P + i * PMD_LEVEL_MULT);
>>  			}
> 
> You can drop the braces for both cases. Applies to similar
> constructs below, too.

I did consider that, but decided against to allow the patch to show
more clearly what it is that is actually being changed.

> With that fixed you can add my:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>

Thanks. I'd like to wait for the x86 maintainer's opinion, and hence
won't add your R-b unless you tell me that's fine either way, or
unless they too would prefer resulting code cleanliness over patch
readability.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: consider effective protection attributes in W+X check

[Juergen Gross]

On 12/12/17 11:31, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Using just the leaf page table entry flags would cause a false warning
> in case _PAGE_RW is clear or _PAGE_NX is set in a higher level entry.
> Hand through both the current entry's flags as well as the accumulated
> effective value (the latter as pgprotval_t instead of pgprot_t, as it's
> not an actual entry's value).
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/mm/dump_pagetables.c |   92 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
>  1 file changed, 57 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
> 
> --- 4.15-rc3/arch/x86/mm/dump_pagetables.c
> +++ 4.15-rc3-x86-dumppgt-effective-prot/arch/x86/mm/dump_pagetables.c
> @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@
>  struct pg_state {
>  	int level;
>  	pgprot_t current_prot;
> +	pgprotval_t effective_prot;
>  	unsigned long start_address;
>  	unsigned long current_address;
>  	const struct addr_marker *marker;
> @@ -202,9 +203,9 @@ static unsigned long normalize_addr(unsi
>   * print what we collected so far.
>   */
>  static void note_page(struct seq_file *m, struct pg_state *st,
> -		      pgprot_t new_prot, int level)
> +		      pgprot_t new_prot, pgprotval_t new_eff, int level)
>  {
> -	pgprotval_t prot, cur;
> +	pgprotval_t prot, cur, eff;
>  	static const char units[] = "BKMGTPE";
>  
>  	/*
> @@ -214,23 +215,24 @@ static void note_page(struct seq_file *m
>  	 */
>  	prot = pgprot_val(new_prot);
>  	cur = pgprot_val(st->current_prot);
> +	eff = st->effective_prot;
>  
>  	if (!st->level) {
>  		/* First entry */
>  		st->current_prot = new_prot;
> +		st->effective_prot = new_eff;
>  		st->level = level;
>  		st->marker = address_markers;
>  		st->lines = 0;
>  		pt_dump_seq_printf(m, st->to_dmesg, "---[ %s ]---\n",
>  				   st->marker->name);
> -	} else if (prot != cur || level != st->level ||
> +	} else if (prot != cur || new_eff != eff || level != st->level ||
>  		   st->current_address >= st->marker[1].start_address) {
>  		const char *unit = units;
>  		unsigned long delta;
>  		int width = sizeof(unsigned long) * 2;
> -		pgprotval_t pr = pgprot_val(st->current_prot);
>  
> -		if (st->check_wx && (pr & _PAGE_RW) && !(pr & _PAGE_NX)) {
> +		if (st->check_wx && (eff & _PAGE_RW) && !(eff & _PAGE_NX)) {
>  			WARN_ONCE(1,
>  				  "x86/mm: Found insecure W+X mapping at address %p/%pS\n",
>  				  (void *)st->start_address,
> @@ -284,21 +286,30 @@ static void note_page(struct seq_file *m
>  
>  		st->start_address = st->current_address;
>  		st->current_prot = new_prot;
> +		st->effective_prot = new_eff;
>  		st->level = level;
>  	}
>  }
>  
> -static void walk_pte_level(struct seq_file *m, struct pg_state *st, pmd_t addr, unsigned long P)
> +static inline pgprotval_t effective_prot(pgprotval_t prot1, pgprotval_t prot2)
> +{
> +	return (prot1 & prot2 & (_PAGE_USER | _PAGE_RW)) |
> +	       ((prot1 | prot2) & _PAGE_NX);
> +}
> +
> +static void walk_pte_level(struct seq_file *m, struct pg_state *st, pmd_t addr,
> +			   pgprotval_t eff_in, unsigned long P)
>  {
>  	int i;
>  	pte_t *start;
> -	pgprotval_t prot;
> +	pgprotval_t prot, eff;
>  
>  	start = (pte_t *)pmd_page_vaddr(addr);
>  	for (i = 0; i < PTRS_PER_PTE; i++) {
>  		prot = pte_flags(*start);
> +		eff = effective_prot(eff_in, prot);
>  		st->current_address = normalize_addr(P + i * PTE_LEVEL_MULT);
> -		note_page(m, st, __pgprot(prot), 5);
> +		note_page(m, st, __pgprot(prot), eff, 5);
>  		start++;
>  	}
>  }
> @@ -335,42 +346,45 @@ static inline bool kasan_page_table(stru
>  
>  #if PTRS_PER_PMD > 1
>  
> -static void walk_pmd_level(struct seq_file *m, struct pg_state *st, pud_t addr, unsigned long P)
> +static void walk_pmd_level(struct seq_file *m, struct pg_state *st, pud_t addr,
> +			   pgprotval_t eff_in, unsigned long P)
>  {
>  	int i;
>  	pmd_t *start, *pmd_start;
> -	pgprotval_t prot;
> +	pgprotval_t prot, eff;
>  
>  	pmd_start = start = (pmd_t *)pud_page_vaddr(addr);
>  	for (i = 0; i < PTRS_PER_PMD; i++) {
>  		st->current_address = normalize_addr(P + i * PMD_LEVEL_MULT);
>  		if (!pmd_none(*start)) {
> +			prot = pmd_flags(*start);
> +			eff = effective_prot(eff_in, prot);
>  			if (pmd_large(*start) || !pmd_present(*start)) {
> -				prot = pmd_flags(*start);
> -				note_page(m, st, __pgprot(prot), 4);
> +				note_page(m, st, __pgprot(prot), eff, 4);
>  			} else if (!kasan_page_table(m, st, pmd_start)) {
> -				walk_pte_level(m, st, *start,
> +				walk_pte_level(m, st, *start, eff,
>  					       P + i * PMD_LEVEL_MULT);
>  			}

You can drop the braces for both cases. Applies to similar
constructs below, too.

With that fixed you can add my:

Reviewed-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>


Juergen

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

[PATCH 0/2] x86: deal with remaining W+X pages on Xen

[Jan Beulich]

The two patches here are entirely independent (i.e. they could by applied
in any order and/or go through separate trees), but for the warning to go
away both are necessary.

1: x86: consider effective protection attributes in W+X check
2: x86-64/Xen: eliminate W+X pages

Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel