Re: Have any influence on set_memory_** about below patch ??

From	Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@huawei.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: Have any influence on set_memory_** about below patch ??
Date	2016-01-14 14:10 +0100
Message-ID	<qQPP4-7uv-7@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(2 earlier) <qPVWy-2fD-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <qQ59w-8S-29@gated-at.bofh.it> <qQr0n-6PJ-35@gated-at.bofh.it> <qQrD4-7jL-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <qQPm3-71u-23@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On 2016/1/14 20:35, Xishi Qiu wrote:

> On 2016/1/13 19:18, Mark Rutland wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 06:30:06PM +0800, Xishi Qiu wrote:
>>> Hi Mark,
>>>
>>> If I create swapper page tables by 4kb, not large page, then I use
>>> set_memory_ro() to change the pate table flag, does it have the problem
>>> too?
>>
>> The splitting/merging problem would not apply.
>>
>> However, you're going to waste a reasonable amount of memory by not
>> using section mappings in the swapper, and we gain additional complexity
>> in the page table setup code (which is shared with others things that
>> want section mappings).
>>
>> What are you exactly actually trying to achieve?
>>
> 
> If module allocates some pages and save data on them, and the data will
> not be changed during the module running. So we want to use set_memory_ro()
> to increase the security. If the data is changed, we can catch someone.
> 
>> What memory do you want to mark RO, and why?
>>
> 
> The key data, and it will not be changed during the running time.
> 
>> >From a previous discussion [1], we figured out alternative approaches
>> for common cases. Do none of those work for your case?
>>
> 
> I have not read the patchset carefully, could you tell me the general meaning
> of the approaches?
> 

Hi Mark,

Is the two approaches like following?
1. use create_mapping to map the data in read only, then use fixmap to create a
temp page table, and change the data when necessary.
2. use vmalloc, then we can use set_memory_ro to change the page table prot.

Thanks,
Xishi Qiu

> Thanks,
> Xishi Qiu
> 
>> Thanks,
>> Mark.
>>
>> [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2016-January/397320.html
>>
>> .
>>
> 
>

Thread

Re: Have any influence on set_memory_** about below patch ?? Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@huawei.com> - 2016-01-12 02:30 +0100
  Re: Have any influence on set_memory_** about below patch ?? Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2016-01-12 12:20 +0100
    Re: Have any influence on set_memory_** about below patch ?? Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@huawei.com> - 2016-01-13 05:20 +0100
      Re: Have any influence on set_memory_** about below patch ?? Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2016-01-13 12:30 +0100
    Re: Have any influence on set_memory_** about below patch ?? Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@huawei.com> - 2016-01-13 06:10 +0100
      Re: Have any influence on set_memory_** about below patch ?? Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@huawei.com> - 2016-01-13 07:40 +0100
      Re: Have any influence on set_memory_** about below patch ?? Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2016-01-13 12:30 +0100
    Re: Have any influence on set_memory_** about below patch ?? Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@huawei.com> - 2016-01-13 11:40 +0100
      Re: Have any influence on set_memory_** about below patch ?? Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2016-01-13 12:20 +0100
        Re: Have any influence on set_memory_** about below patch ?? Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@huawei.com> - 2016-01-14 13:40 +0100
          Re: Have any influence on set_memory_** about below patch ?? Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@huawei.com> - 2016-01-14 14:10 +0100
            Re: Have any influence on set_memory_** about below patch ?? Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2016-01-14 14:50 +0100

csiph-web