All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tong Tiangen <tongtiangen@huawei.com>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	"Benjamin Herrenschmidt" <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>, <x86@kernel.org>,
	"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	<linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>,
	Xie XiuQi <xiexiuqi@huawei.com>, Guohanjun <guohanjun@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v4 4/7] arm64: add copy_{to, from}_user to machine check safe
Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 14:39:43 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <7da54d72-e5fa-41b5-67ea-a0b084e4c94a@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YnJU4NIrJmHLawgk@arm.com>



在 2022/5/4 18:26, Catalin Marinas 写道:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 03:04:15AM +0000, Tong Tiangen wrote:
>> Add copy_{to, from}_user() to machine check safe.
>>
>> If copy fail due to hardware memory error, only the relevant processes are
>> affected, so killing the user process and isolate the user page with
>> hardware memory errors is a more reasonable choice than kernel panic.
> 
> Just to make sure I understand - we can only recover if the fault is in
> a user page. That is, for a copy_from_user(), we can only handle the
> faults in the source address, not the destination.

At the beginning, I also thought we can only recover if the fault is in 
a user page.
After discussion with a Mark[1], I think no matter user page or kernel 
page, as long as it is triggered by the user process, only related 
processes will be affected. According to this
understanding, it seems that all uaccess can be recovered.

[1]https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-kernel/patch/20220406091311.3354723-6-tongtiangen@huawei.com/

Thanks,
Tong.

> 
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/lib/copy_from_user.S b/arch/arm64/lib/copy_from_user.S
>> index 34e317907524..480cc5ac0a8d 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/lib/copy_from_user.S
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/lib/copy_from_user.S
>> @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@
>>   	.endm
>>   
>>   	.macro strb1 reg, ptr, val
>> -	strb \reg, [\ptr], \val
>> +	USER_MC(9998f, strb \reg, [\ptr], \val)
>>   	.endm
> 
> So if I got the above correctly, why do we need an exception table entry
> for the store to the kernel address?
> 

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Tong Tiangen <tongtiangen@huawei.com>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	Guohanjun <guohanjun@huawei.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	x86@kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Xie XiuQi <xiexiuqi@huawei.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v4 4/7] arm64: add copy_{to, from}_user to machine check safe
Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 14:39:43 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <7da54d72-e5fa-41b5-67ea-a0b084e4c94a@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YnJU4NIrJmHLawgk@arm.com>



在 2022/5/4 18:26, Catalin Marinas 写道:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 03:04:15AM +0000, Tong Tiangen wrote:
>> Add copy_{to, from}_user() to machine check safe.
>>
>> If copy fail due to hardware memory error, only the relevant processes are
>> affected, so killing the user process and isolate the user page with
>> hardware memory errors is a more reasonable choice than kernel panic.
> 
> Just to make sure I understand - we can only recover if the fault is in
> a user page. That is, for a copy_from_user(), we can only handle the
> faults in the source address, not the destination.

At the beginning, I also thought we can only recover if the fault is in 
a user page.
After discussion with a Mark[1], I think no matter user page or kernel 
page, as long as it is triggered by the user process, only related 
processes will be affected. According to this
understanding, it seems that all uaccess can be recovered.

[1]https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-kernel/patch/20220406091311.3354723-6-tongtiangen@huawei.com/

Thanks,
Tong.

> 
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/lib/copy_from_user.S b/arch/arm64/lib/copy_from_user.S
>> index 34e317907524..480cc5ac0a8d 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/lib/copy_from_user.S
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/lib/copy_from_user.S
>> @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@
>>   	.endm
>>   
>>   	.macro strb1 reg, ptr, val
>> -	strb \reg, [\ptr], \val
>> +	USER_MC(9998f, strb \reg, [\ptr], \val)
>>   	.endm
> 
> So if I got the above correctly, why do we need an exception table entry
> for the store to the kernel address?
> 

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Tong Tiangen <tongtiangen@huawei.com>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	"Benjamin Herrenschmidt" <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,  <x86@kernel.org>,
	"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	<linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>,
	Xie XiuQi <xiexiuqi@huawei.com>, Guohanjun <guohanjun@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v4 4/7] arm64: add copy_{to, from}_user to machine check safe
Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 14:39:43 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <7da54d72-e5fa-41b5-67ea-a0b084e4c94a@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YnJU4NIrJmHLawgk@arm.com>



在 2022/5/4 18:26, Catalin Marinas 写道:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 03:04:15AM +0000, Tong Tiangen wrote:
>> Add copy_{to, from}_user() to machine check safe.
>>
>> If copy fail due to hardware memory error, only the relevant processes are
>> affected, so killing the user process and isolate the user page with
>> hardware memory errors is a more reasonable choice than kernel panic.
> 
> Just to make sure I understand - we can only recover if the fault is in
> a user page. That is, for a copy_from_user(), we can only handle the
> faults in the source address, not the destination.

At the beginning, I also thought we can only recover if the fault is in 
a user page.
After discussion with a Mark[1], I think no matter user page or kernel 
page, as long as it is triggered by the user process, only related 
processes will be affected. According to this
understanding, it seems that all uaccess can be recovered.

[1]https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-kernel/patch/20220406091311.3354723-6-tongtiangen@huawei.com/

Thanks,
Tong.

> 
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/lib/copy_from_user.S b/arch/arm64/lib/copy_from_user.S
>> index 34e317907524..480cc5ac0a8d 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/lib/copy_from_user.S
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/lib/copy_from_user.S
>> @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@
>>   	.endm
>>   
>>   	.macro strb1 reg, ptr, val
>> -	strb \reg, [\ptr], \val
>> +	USER_MC(9998f, strb \reg, [\ptr], \val)
>>   	.endm
> 
> So if I got the above correctly, why do we need an exception table entry
> for the store to the kernel address?
> 

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

  reply	other threads:[~2022-05-05  6:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 96+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-04-20  3:04 [PATCH -next v4 0/7]arm64: add machine check safe support Tong Tiangen
2022-04-20  3:04 ` Tong Tiangen
2022-04-20  3:04 ` Tong Tiangen
2022-04-20  3:04 ` [PATCH -next v4 1/7] x86, powerpc: fix function define in copy_mc_to_user Tong Tiangen
2022-04-20  3:04   ` Tong Tiangen
2022-04-20  3:04   ` Tong Tiangen
2022-04-22  9:45   ` Michael Ellerman
2022-04-22  9:45     ` Michael Ellerman
2022-04-22  9:45     ` Michael Ellerman
2022-04-24  1:16     ` Tong Tiangen
2022-04-24  1:16       ` Tong Tiangen
2022-04-24  1:16       ` Tong Tiangen
2022-05-02 14:24   ` Christophe Leroy
2022-05-02 14:24     ` Christophe Leroy
2022-05-03  1:06     ` Tong Tiangen
2022-05-03  1:06       ` Tong Tiangen
2022-05-05  1:21       ` Kefeng Wang
2022-05-05  1:21         ` Kefeng Wang
2022-04-20  3:04 ` [PATCH -next v4 2/7] arm64: fix types in copy_highpage() Tong Tiangen
2022-04-20  3:04   ` Tong Tiangen
2022-04-20  3:04   ` Tong Tiangen
2022-04-20  3:04 ` [PATCH -next v4 3/7] arm64: add support for machine check error safe Tong Tiangen
2022-04-20  3:04   ` Tong Tiangen
2022-04-20  3:04   ` Tong Tiangen
2022-05-13 15:26   ` Mark Rutland
2022-05-13 15:26     ` Mark Rutland
2022-05-13 15:26     ` Mark Rutland
2022-05-19  6:29     ` Tong Tiangen
2022-05-19  6:29       ` Tong Tiangen
2022-05-19  6:29       ` Tong Tiangen
2022-05-25  8:30       ` Mark Rutland
2022-05-25  8:30         ` Mark Rutland
2022-05-25  8:30         ` Mark Rutland
2022-05-26  3:36         ` Tong Tiangen
2022-05-26  3:36           ` Tong Tiangen
2022-05-26  3:36           ` Tong Tiangen
2022-05-26  9:50           ` Mark Rutland
2022-05-26  9:50             ` Mark Rutland
2022-05-26  9:50             ` Mark Rutland
2022-05-27  1:40             ` Tong Tiangen
2022-05-27  1:40               ` Tong Tiangen
2022-05-27  1:40               ` Tong Tiangen
2022-04-20  3:04 ` [PATCH -next v4 4/7] arm64: add copy_{to, from}_user to machine check safe Tong Tiangen
2022-04-20  3:04   ` Tong Tiangen
2022-04-20  3:04   ` Tong Tiangen
2022-05-04 10:26   ` Catalin Marinas
2022-05-04 10:26     ` Catalin Marinas
2022-05-04 10:26     ` Catalin Marinas
2022-05-05  6:39     ` Tong Tiangen [this message]
2022-05-05  6:39       ` Tong Tiangen
2022-05-05  6:39       ` Tong Tiangen
2022-05-05 13:41       ` Catalin Marinas
2022-05-05 13:41         ` Catalin Marinas
2022-05-05 13:41         ` Catalin Marinas
2022-05-05 14:33         ` Tong Tiangen
2022-05-05 14:33           ` Tong Tiangen
2022-05-05 14:33           ` Tong Tiangen
2022-05-13 15:31   ` Mark Rutland
2022-05-13 15:31     ` Mark Rutland
2022-05-13 15:31     ` Mark Rutland
2022-05-19  6:53     ` Tong Tiangen
2022-05-19  6:53       ` Tong Tiangen
2022-05-19  6:53       ` Tong Tiangen
2022-04-20  3:04 ` [PATCH -next v4 5/7] arm64: mte: Clean up user tag accessors Tong Tiangen
2022-04-20  3:04   ` Tong Tiangen
2022-04-20  3:04   ` Tong Tiangen
2022-05-13 15:36   ` Mark Rutland
2022-05-13 15:36     ` Mark Rutland
2022-05-13 15:36     ` Mark Rutland
2022-04-20  3:04 ` [PATCH -next v4 6/7] arm64: add {get, put}_user to machine check safe Tong Tiangen
2022-04-20  3:04   ` Tong Tiangen
2022-04-20  3:04   ` Tong Tiangen
2022-05-13 15:39   ` Mark Rutland
2022-05-13 15:39     ` Mark Rutland
2022-05-13 15:39     ` Mark Rutland
2022-05-19  7:09     ` Tong Tiangen
2022-05-19  7:09       ` Tong Tiangen
2022-05-19  7:09       ` Tong Tiangen
2022-04-20  3:04 ` [PATCH -next v4 7/7] arm64: add cow " Tong Tiangen
2022-04-20  3:04   ` Tong Tiangen
2022-04-20  3:04   ` Tong Tiangen
2022-05-13 15:44   ` Mark Rutland
2022-05-13 15:44     ` Mark Rutland
2022-05-13 15:44     ` Mark Rutland
2022-05-19 10:38     ` Tong Tiangen
2022-05-19 10:38       ` Tong Tiangen
2022-05-19 10:38       ` Tong Tiangen
2022-04-27  9:09 ` [PATCH -next v4 0/7]arm64: add machine check safe support Tong Tiangen
2022-04-27  9:09   ` Tong Tiangen
2022-04-27  9:09   ` Tong Tiangen
2022-05-04 19:58 ` (subset) " Catalin Marinas
2022-05-04 19:58   ` Catalin Marinas
2022-05-04 19:58   ` Catalin Marinas
2022-05-16 18:45 ` Catalin Marinas
2022-05-16 18:45   ` Catalin Marinas
2022-05-16 18:45   ` Catalin Marinas

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=7da54d72-e5fa-41b5-67ea-a0b084e4c94a@huawei.com \
    --to=tongtiangen@huawei.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=guohanjun@huawei.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=james.morse@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
    --cc=paulus@samba.org \
    --cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    --cc=xiexiuqi@huawei.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.