Re: [PATCH v4 15/29] arm64: handle PKEY/POE faults
From: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
Date: 2024-08-06 13:33:53
Also in:
kvmarm, linux-arm-kernel, linux-fsdevel, linux-mm
Hi, On Thu, Aug 01, 2024 at 05:01:10PM +0100, Joey Gouly wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 04:57:09PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:quoted
On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 02:01:33PM +0100, Joey Gouly wrote:quoted
If a memory fault occurs that is due to an overlay/pkey fault, report that to userspace with a SEGV_PKUERR. Signed-off-by: Joey Gouly <joey.gouly@arm.com> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> --- arch/arm64/include/asm/traps.h | 1 + arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c | 12 ++++++-- arch/arm64/mm/fault.c | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- 3 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/traps.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/traps.h index eefe766d6161..f6f6f2cb7f10 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/traps.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/traps.h@@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ try_emulate_armv8_deprecated(struct pt_regs *regs, u32 insn) void force_signal_inject(int signal, int code, unsigned long address, unsigned long err); void arm64_notify_segfault(unsigned long addr); void arm64_force_sig_fault(int signo, int code, unsigned long far, const char *str); +void arm64_force_sig_fault_pkey(int signo, int code, unsigned long far, const char *str, int pkey); void arm64_force_sig_mceerr(int code, unsigned long far, short lsb, const char *str); void arm64_force_sig_ptrace_errno_trap(int errno, unsigned long far, const char *str);diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c index 215e6d7f2df8..1bac6c84d3f5 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c@@ -263,16 +263,24 @@ static void arm64_show_signal(int signo, const char *str) __show_regs(regs); } -void arm64_force_sig_fault(int signo, int code, unsigned long far, - const char *str) +void arm64_force_sig_fault_pkey(int signo, int code, unsigned long far, + const char *str, int pkey) { arm64_show_signal(signo, str); if (signo == SIGKILL) force_sig(SIGKILL); + else if (code == SEGV_PKUERR) + force_sig_pkuerr((void __user *)far, pkey);Is signo definitely SIGSEGV here? It looks to me like we can get in here for SIGBUS, SIGTRAP etc. si_codes are not unique between different signo here, so I'm wondering whether this should this be: else if (signo == SIGSEGV && code == SEGV_PKUERR) ...?quoted
else force_sig_fault(signo, code, (void __user *)far); } +void arm64_force_sig_fault(int signo, int code, unsigned long far, + const char *str) +{ + arm64_force_sig_fault_pkey(signo, code, far, str, 0);Is there a reason not to follow the same convention as elsewhere, where -1 is passed for "no pkey"? If we think this should never be called with signo == SIGSEGV && code == SEGV_PKUERR and no valid pkey but if it's messy to prove, then maybe a WARN_ON_ONCE() would be worth it here?Anshuman suggested to separate them out, which I did like below, I think that addresses your comments too?diff --git arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c index 215e6d7f2df8..49bac9ae04c0 100644 --- arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c +++ arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c@@ -273,6 +273,13 @@ void arm64_force_sig_fault(int signo, int code, unsigned long far, force_sig_fault(signo, code, (void __user *)far); } +void arm64_force_sig_fault_pkey(int signo, int code, unsigned long far, + const char *str, int pkey) +{ + arm64_show_signal(signo, str); + force_sig_pkuerr((void __user *)far, pkey); +} + void arm64_force_sig_mceerr(int code, unsigned long far, short lsb, const char *str) {diff --git arch/arm64/mm/fault.c arch/arm64/mm/fault.c index 451ba7cbd5ad..1ddd46b97f88 100644 --- arch/arm64/mm/fault.c +++ arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
(Guessing where this is means to apply, since there is no hunk header or context...)
- arm64_force_sig_fault(SIGSEGV, si_code, far, inf->name); + if (si_code == SEGV_PKUERR) + arm64_force_sig_fault_pkey(SIGSEGV, si_code, far, inf->name, pkey);
Maybe drop the the signo and si_code argument? This would mean that arm64_force_sig_fault_pkey() can't be called with a signo/si_code combination that makes no sense. I think pkey faults are always going to be SIGSEGV/SEGV_PKUERR, right? Or are there other combinations that can apply for these faults?
+ else + arm64_force_sig_fault(SIGSEGV, si_code, far, inf->name);
Otherwise yes, I think splitting things this way makes sense. Cheers ---Dave