Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] mm: introduce memfd_secret system call to create "secret" memory areas
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Date: 2020-07-31 14:29:24
Also in:
linux-api, linux-arch, linux-fsdevel, linux-mm, linux-riscv, lkml, nvdimm
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 05:22:10PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 07:29:31PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
quoted
+static int secretmem_mmap(struct file *file, struct vm_area_struct *vma) +{ + struct secretmem_ctx *ctx = file->private_data; + unsigned long mode = ctx->mode; + unsigned long len = vma->vm_end - vma->vm_start; + + if (!mode) + return -EINVAL; + + if ((vma->vm_flags & (VM_SHARED | VM_MAYSHARE)) == 0) + return -EINVAL; + + if (mlock_future_check(vma->vm_mm, vma->vm_flags | VM_LOCKED, len)) + return -EAGAIN; + + switch (mode) { + case SECRETMEM_UNCACHED: + vma->vm_page_prot = pgprot_noncached(vma->vm_page_prot); + fallthrough; + case SECRETMEM_EXCLUSIVE: + vma->vm_ops = &secretmem_vm_ops; + break; + default: + return -EINVAL; + } + + vma->vm_flags |= VM_LOCKED; + + return 0; +}I think the uncached mapping is not the right thing for arm/arm64. First of all, pgprot_noncached() gives us Strongly Ordered (Device memory) semantics together with not allowing unaligned accesses. I suspect the semantics are different on x86.
The second, more serious problem, is that I can't find any place where the caches are flushed for the page mapped on fault. When a page is allocated, assuming GFP_ZERO, only the caches are guaranteed to be zeroed. Exposing this subsequently to user space as uncached would allow the user to read stale data prior to zeroing. The arm64 set_direct_map_default_noflush() doesn't do any cache maintenance.
It's also worth noting that in a virtual machine this is liable to be either broken (with a potential loss of coherency if the host has a cacheable alias as existing KVM hosts have), or pointless (if the host uses S2FWB to upgrade Stage-1 attribues to cacheable as existing KVM hosts also have). I think that trying to avoid the data caches creates many more problems than it solves, and I don't think there's a strong justification for trying to support that on arm64 to begin with, so I'd rather entirely opt-out on supporting SECRETMEM_UNCACHED. Thanks, Mark. _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel