Re: [PATCH v6 3/9] arm64, kfence: enable KFENCE for ARM64

From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Cc: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
	"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
	Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>,
	Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
	joern@purestorage.com, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	SeongJae Park <sjpark@amazon.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
	"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
	kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	kasan-dev <kasan-dev@googlegroups.com>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/9] arm64, kfence: enable KFENCE for ARM64
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2020 16:00:04 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201030160004.GE50718@C02TD0UTHF1T.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAG48ez11T4gXHkhgnM7eWc1EJQ5u7NQup4ADy75c1uUVPeWGSg@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 03:49:26AM +0100, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 2:17 PM Marco Elver <elver@google.com> wrote:
> > @@ -312,6 +313,9 @@ static void __do_kernel_fault(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr,
> >             "Ignoring spurious kernel translation fault at virtual address %016lx\n", addr))
> >                 return;
> >
> > +       if (kfence_handle_page_fault(addr))
> > +               return;
> 
> As in the X86 case, we may want to ensure that this doesn't run for
> permission faults, only for non-present pages. Maybe move this down
> into the third branch of the "if" block below (neither permission
> fault nor NULL deref)?

I think that'd make sense. Those cases *should* be mutually exclusive,
but it'd be more robust to do the KFENCE checks in that last block so
that if something goes wrong wrong within KFENCE we can't get stuck in a
loop failing to service an instruction abort or similar.

Either that, or factor out an is_el1_translation_fault() and only do the
KFENCE check and is_spurious_el1_translation_fault() check under that.

Thanks,
Mark.