From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751375AbdIKOuY (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 11 Sep 2017 10:50:24 -0400
Received: from mail-pg0-f43.google.com ([74.125.83.43]:33211 "EHLO
        mail-pg0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751153AbdIKOuX (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 11 Sep 2017 10:50:23 -0400
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADKCNb6J0FX27heVpEqfMZT5I1GC5atw28ANRT4Gj+R+c56pvD7lbFsVF3LCa8eAE6wpdqC7qwgYJg==
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 07:50:20 -0700
From: Tycho Andersen <tycho@docker.com>
To: Yisheng Xie <xieyisheng1@huawei.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com,
        Marco Benatto <marco.antonio.780@gmail.com>,
        Juerg Haefliger <juerg.haefliger@canonical.com>, x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 03/11] mm, x86: Add support for eXclusive Page Frame
 Ownership (XPFO)
Message-ID: <20170911145020.fat456njvyagcomu@docker>
References: <20170907173609.22696-1-tycho@docker.com>
 <20170907173609.22696-4-tycho@docker.com>
 <302be94d-7e44-001d-286c-2b0cd6098f7b@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <302be94d-7e44-001d-286c-2b0cd6098f7b@huawei.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi Yisheng,

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 03:24:09PM +0800, Yisheng Xie wrote:
> > +void xpfo_alloc_pages(struct page *page, int order, gfp_t gfp)
> > +{
> > +	int i, flush_tlb = 0;
> > +	struct xpfo *xpfo;
> > +
> > +	if (!static_branch_unlikely(&xpfo_inited))
> > +		return;
> > +
> > +	for (i = 0; i < (1 << order); i++)  {
> > +		xpfo = lookup_xpfo(page + i);
> > +		if (!xpfo)
> > +			continue;
> > +
> > +		WARN(test_bit(XPFO_PAGE_UNMAPPED, &xpfo->flags),
> > +		     "xpfo: unmapped page being allocated\n");
> > +
> > +		/* Initialize the map lock and map counter */
> > +		if (unlikely(!xpfo->inited)) {
> > +			spin_lock_init(&xpfo->maplock);
> > +			atomic_set(&xpfo->mapcount, 0);
> > +			xpfo->inited = true;
> > +		}
> > +		WARN(atomic_read(&xpfo->mapcount),
> > +		     "xpfo: already mapped page being allocated\n");
> > +
> > +		if ((gfp & GFP_HIGHUSER) == GFP_HIGHUSER) {
> > +			/*
> > +			 * Tag the page as a user page and flush the TLB if it
> > +			 * was previously allocated to the kernel.
> > +			 */
> > +			if (!test_and_set_bit(XPFO_PAGE_USER, &xpfo->flags))
> > +				flush_tlb = 1;
> 
> I'm not sure whether I am miss anything, however, when the page was previously allocated
> to kernel,  should we unmap the physmap (the kernel's page table) here? For we allocate
> the page to user now

Yes, I think you're right. Oddly, the XPFO_READ_USER test works
correctly for me, but I think (?) should not because of this bug...

Tycho