Re: [PATCH RFC] mm: add MAP_EXCLUSIVE to create exclusive user mappings
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
Date: 2019-10-29 09:29:04
Also in:
linux-mm, lkml
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 11:08:08AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 10:12:44AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:quoted
Some other random thoughts: * The page flag is probably not a good idea. It would be probably better to set _PAGE_SPECIAL on the PTE and force get_user_pages() into the slow path. * This really stops being "normal" memory. You can't do futexes on it, cant splice it. Probably need a more fleshed-out list of incompatible features. * As Kirill noted, each 4k page ends up with a potential 1GB "blast radius" of demoted pages in the direct map. Not cool. This is probably a non-starter as it stands. * The global TLB flushes are going to eat you alive. They probably border on a DoS on larger systems. * Do we really want this user interface to dictate the kernel implementation? In other words, do we really want MAP_EXCLUSIVE, or do we want MAP_SECRET? One tells the kernel what do *do*, the other tells the kernel what the memory *IS*. * There's a lot of other stuff going on in this area: XPFO, SEV, MKTME, Persistent Memory, where the kernel direct map is a liability in some way. We probably need some kind of overall, architected solution rather than five or ten things all poking at the direct map.Another random set of thoughts: - Should devices be permitted to DMA to/from MAP_SECRET pages?
I can't say I have a clear cut yes or no here. One possible use case for such pages is to read a secrets from storage directly into them. On the other side, DMA to/from a device can be used to exploit those secrets...
- How about GUP?
Do you mean GUP for "remote" memory? I'd say no.
- Can I ptrace my way into another process's secret pages?
No.
- What if I splice() the page into a pipe?
I think it should fail. -- Sincerely yours, Mike.