On 23.10.24 11:06, Vlastimil Babka wrote:

On 10/23/24 10:56, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:

quoted

quoted

Overall while I sympathise with this, it feels dangerous and a pretty major
change, because there'll be something somewhere that will break because it
expects faults to be swallowed that we no longer do swallow.

So I'd say it'd be something we should defer, but of course it's a highly
user-facing change so how easy that would be I don't know.

But I definitely don't think a 'introduce the ability to do cheap PROT_NONE
guards' series is the place to also fundmentally change how user access
page faults are handled within the kernel :)

Will delivering signals on kernel access be a backwards compatible
change? Or will we need a different API? MADV_GUARD_POISON_KERNEL?
It's just somewhat painful to detect/update all userspace if we add
this feature in future. Can we say signal delivery on kernel accesses
is unspecified?

Would adding signal delivery to guard PTEs only help enough the ASAN etc
usecase? Wouldn't it be instead possible to add some prctl to opt-in the
whole ASANized process to deliver all existing segfaults as signals instead
of -EFAULT ?

Not sure if it is an "instead", you might have to deliver the signal in 
addition to letting the syscall fail (not that I would be an expert on 
signal delivery :D ).

prctl sounds better, or some way to configure the behavior on VMA 
ranges; otherwise we would need yet another marker, which is not the end 
of the world but would make it slightly more confusing.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb