Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1624673 > unrolled thread

[PATCH 3/4] KASLR: Handle memory limit specified by memmap and mem option

Started byBaoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
First post2017-04-17 15:40 +0200
Last post2017-04-19 03:00 +0200
Articles 5 — 2 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.


Contents

  [PATCH 3/4] KASLR: Handle memory limit specified by memmap and mem option Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> - 2017-04-17 15:40 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 3/4] KASLR: Handle memory limit specified by memmap and  mem option Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> - 2017-04-18 22:40 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 3/4] KASLR: Handle memory limit specified by memmap and  mem option Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> - 2017-04-19 01:20 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 3/4] KASLR: Handle memory limit specified by memmap and  mem option Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> - 2017-04-19 03:00 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 3/4] KASLR: Handle memory limit specified by memmap and  mem option Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> - 2017-04-19 03:00 +0200

#1624673 — [PATCH 3/4] KASLR: Handle memory limit specified by memmap and mem option

FromBaoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
Date2017-04-17 15:40 +0200
Subject[PATCH 3/4] KASLR: Handle memory limit specified by memmap and mem option
Message-ID<txf2N-1br-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
Option mem= will limit the max address system can use. Any memory
region above the limit will be removed. And memmap=nn[KMG] which
has no offset specified has the same behaviour as mem=. KASLR need
consider this when choose the random position for decompressing
kernel. Do it in this patch.

Signed-off-by: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: x86@kernel.org
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
---
 arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c
index 36ab429..5361abd 100644
--- a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c
+++ b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c
@@ -67,6 +67,10 @@ int mem_avoid_memmap_index;
 extern unsigned long get_cmd_line_ptr(void);
 
 
+/* Store memory limit specified by "mem=nn[KMG]" or "memmap=nn[KMG]" */
+unsigned long long mem_limit = ULLONG_MAX;
+
+
 enum mem_avoid_index {
 	MEM_AVOID_ZO_RANGE = 0,
 	MEM_AVOID_INITRD,
@@ -117,15 +121,18 @@ parse_memmap(char *p, unsigned long long *start, unsigned long long *size)
 		return -EINVAL;
 
 	switch (*p) {
-	case '@':
-		/* Skip this region, usable */
-		*size = 0;
-		*start = 0;
 	case '#':
 	case '$':
 	case '!':
 		*start = memparse(p + 1, &p);
 		return 0;
+	case '@':
+		/* Skip this region, usable */
+		*size = 0;
+	default:
+		/* Avoid the region which is above the amount limit */
+		*start = 0;
+		return 0;
 	}
 
 	return -EINVAL;
@@ -151,9 +158,14 @@ static void mem_avoid_memmap(char *str)
 		if (rc < 0)
 			break;
 		str = k;
-		/* A usable region that should not be skipped */
-		if (size == 0)
+
+		if (start == 0) {
+			/* Store the specified memory limit if size > 0 */
+			if (size > 0)
+				mem_limit = size;
+
 			continue;
+		}
 
 		mem_avoid[MEM_AVOID_MEMMAP_BEGIN + i].start = start;
 		mem_avoid[MEM_AVOID_MEMMAP_BEGIN + i].size = size;
@@ -173,6 +185,7 @@ static int handle_mem_memmap(void)
 	char tmp_cmdline[COMMAND_LINE_SIZE];
 	size_t len = strlen((char *)args);
 	char *param, *val;
+	u64 mem_size;
 
 	len = (len >= COMMAND_LINE_SIZE) ? COMMAND_LINE_SIZE - 1 : len;
 	memcpy(tmp_cmdline, args, len);
@@ -195,8 +208,18 @@ static int handle_mem_memmap(void)
 			return -1;
 		}
 
-		if (!strcmp(param, "memmap"))
+		if (!strcmp(param, "memmap")) {
 			mem_avoid_memmap(val);
+		} else if (!strcmp(param, "mem")) {
+			char *p = val;
+
+			if (!strcmp(p, "nopentium"))
+				continue;
+			mem_size = memparse(p, &p);
+			if (mem_size == 0)
+				return -EINVAL;
+			mem_limit = mem_size;
+		}
 	}
 
 	return 0;
@@ -432,7 +455,8 @@ static void process_e820_entry(struct e820entry *entry,
 {
 	struct mem_vector region, overlap;
 	struct slot_area slot_area;
-	unsigned long start_orig;
+	unsigned long start_orig, end;
+	struct e820entry cur_entry;
 
 	/* Skip non-RAM entries. */
 	if (entry->type != E820_RAM)
@@ -446,8 +470,15 @@ static void process_e820_entry(struct e820entry *entry,
 	if (entry->addr + entry->size < minimum)
 		return;
 
-	region.start = entry->addr;
-	region.size = entry->size;
+	/* Ignore entries above memory limit */
+	end = min(entry->size + entry->addr - 1, mem_limit);
+	if (entry->addr >= end)
+		return;
+	cur_entry.addr = entry->addr;
+	cur_entry.size = end - entry->addr + 1;
+
+	region.start = cur_entry.addr;
+	region.size = cur_entry.size;
 
 	/* Give up if slot area array is full. */
 	while (slot_area_index < MAX_SLOT_AREA) {
@@ -461,7 +492,7 @@ static void process_e820_entry(struct e820entry *entry,
 		region.start = ALIGN(region.start, CONFIG_PHYSICAL_ALIGN);
 
 		/* Did we raise the address above this e820 region? */
-		if (region.start > entry->addr + entry->size)
+		if (region.start > cur_entry.addr + cur_entry.size)
 			return;
 
 		/* Reduce size by any delta from the original address. */
-- 
2.5.5

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#1625642 — Re: [PATCH 3/4] KASLR: Handle memory limit specified by memmap and mem option

FromKees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Date2017-04-18 22:40 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/4] KASLR: Handle memory limit specified by memmap and mem option
Message-ID<txI4N-2c8-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1624673
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 6:34 AM, Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> wrote:
> Option mem= will limit the max address system can use. Any memory
> region above the limit will be removed. And memmap=nn[KMG] which
> has no offset specified has the same behaviour as mem=. KASLR need
> consider this when choose the random position for decompressing
> kernel. Do it in this patch.
>
> Signed-off-by: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
> Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> Cc: x86@kernel.org
> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> Cc: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
> ---
>  arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c
> index 36ab429..5361abd 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c
> @@ -67,6 +67,10 @@ int mem_avoid_memmap_index;
>  extern unsigned long get_cmd_line_ptr(void);
>
>
> +/* Store memory limit specified by "mem=nn[KMG]" or "memmap=nn[KMG]" */
> +unsigned long long mem_limit = ULLONG_MAX;

I would either make this 0 or ULLONG_MAX - 1 (see below).

> +
> +
>  enum mem_avoid_index {
>         MEM_AVOID_ZO_RANGE = 0,
>         MEM_AVOID_INITRD,
> @@ -117,15 +121,18 @@ parse_memmap(char *p, unsigned long long *start, unsigned long long *size)
>                 return -EINVAL;
>
>         switch (*p) {
> -       case '@':
> -               /* Skip this region, usable */
> -               *size = 0;
> -               *start = 0;
>         case '#':
>         case '$':
>         case '!':
>                 *start = memparse(p + 1, &p);
>                 return 0;
> +       case '@':
> +               /* Skip this region, usable */
> +               *size = 0;

Now it looks like we're intentionally falling through. A comment
should be included to indicate it.

> +       default:
> +               /* Avoid the region which is above the amount limit */
> +               *start = 0;
> +               return 0;
>         }
>
>         return -EINVAL;
> @@ -151,9 +158,14 @@ static void mem_avoid_memmap(char *str)
>                 if (rc < 0)
>                         break;
>                 str = k;
> -               /* A usable region that should not be skipped */
> -               if (size == 0)
> +
> +               if (start == 0) {
> +                       /* Store the specified memory limit if size > 0 */
> +                       if (size > 0)
> +                               mem_limit = size;
> +
>                         continue;
> +               }
>
>                 mem_avoid[MEM_AVOID_MEMMAP_BEGIN + i].start = start;
>                 mem_avoid[MEM_AVOID_MEMMAP_BEGIN + i].size = size;
> @@ -173,6 +185,7 @@ static int handle_mem_memmap(void)
>         char tmp_cmdline[COMMAND_LINE_SIZE];
>         size_t len = strlen((char *)args);
>         char *param, *val;
> +       u64 mem_size;
>
>         len = (len >= COMMAND_LINE_SIZE) ? COMMAND_LINE_SIZE - 1 : len;
>         memcpy(tmp_cmdline, args, len);
> @@ -195,8 +208,18 @@ static int handle_mem_memmap(void)
>                         return -1;
>                 }
>
> -               if (!strcmp(param, "memmap"))
> +               if (!strcmp(param, "memmap")) {
>                         mem_avoid_memmap(val);
> +               } else if (!strcmp(param, "mem")) {
> +                       char *p = val;
> +
> +                       if (!strcmp(p, "nopentium"))
> +                               continue;
> +                       mem_size = memparse(p, &p);
> +                       if (mem_size == 0)
> +                               return -EINVAL;
> +                       mem_limit = mem_size;
> +               }
>         }
>
>         return 0;
> @@ -432,7 +455,8 @@ static void process_e820_entry(struct e820entry *entry,
>  {
>         struct mem_vector region, overlap;
>         struct slot_area slot_area;
> -       unsigned long start_orig;
> +       unsigned long start_orig, end;
> +       struct e820entry cur_entry;
>
>         /* Skip non-RAM entries. */
>         if (entry->type != E820_RAM)
> @@ -446,8 +470,15 @@ static void process_e820_entry(struct e820entry *entry,
>         if (entry->addr + entry->size < minimum)
>                 return;
>
> -       region.start = entry->addr;
> -       region.size = entry->size;
> +       /* Ignore entries above memory limit */
> +       end = min(entry->size + entry->addr - 1, mem_limit);
> +       if (entry->addr >= end)
> +               return;
> +       cur_entry.addr = entry->addr;
> +       cur_entry.size = end - entry->addr + 1;
> +
> +       region.start = cur_entry.addr;
> +       region.size = cur_entry.size;

I find the manipulation of entry->addr +/- 1 confusing; it should just
be mem_limit that is adjusted:

    end = min(entry->size + entry->addr, mem_limit + 1);

And maybe to avoid mem_limit being giant by default, maybe have "0" be special?

    cur_entry.addr = entry->addr;
    if (mem_limit) {
         unsigned long end = min(entry->size + entry->addr, mem_limit + 1);
         if (entry->addr > end)
             return;
         cur_entry.size = end - entry->addr;
    } else {
          cur_entry.size = entry->size;
    }

or something... and maybe move the whole thing earlier so other tests
that examine entry->size are checked with the new adjusted value.

-Kees

>
>         /* Give up if slot area array is full. */
>         while (slot_area_index < MAX_SLOT_AREA) {
> @@ -461,7 +492,7 @@ static void process_e820_entry(struct e820entry *entry,
>                 region.start = ALIGN(region.start, CONFIG_PHYSICAL_ALIGN);
>
>                 /* Did we raise the address above this e820 region? */
> -               if (region.start > entry->addr + entry->size)
> +               if (region.start > cur_entry.addr + cur_entry.size)
>                         return;
>
>                 /* Reduce size by any delta from the original address. */
> --
> 2.5.5
>



-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#1625711 — Re: [PATCH 3/4] KASLR: Handle memory limit specified by memmap and mem option

FromBaoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
Date2017-04-19 01:20 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/4] KASLR: Handle memory limit specified by memmap and mem option
Message-ID<txKzD-3PB-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1625642
On 04/18/17 at 01:36pm, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 6:34 AM, Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Option mem= will limit the max address system can use. Any memory
> > region above the limit will be removed. And memmap=nn[KMG] which
> > has no offset specified has the same behaviour as mem=. KASLR need
> > consider this when choose the random position for decompressing
> > kernel. Do it in this patch.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
> > Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> > Cc: x86@kernel.org
> > Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> > Cc: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
> > Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> >  1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c
> > index 36ab429..5361abd 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c
> > @@ -67,6 +67,10 @@ int mem_avoid_memmap_index;
> >  extern unsigned long get_cmd_line_ptr(void);
> >
> >
> > +/* Store memory limit specified by "mem=nn[KMG]" or "memmap=nn[KMG]" */
> > +unsigned long long mem_limit = ULLONG_MAX;
> 
> I would either make this 0 or ULLONG_MAX - 1 (see below).

I prefer "ULLONG_MAX-1". Please see reason below

> 
> > +
> > +
> >  enum mem_avoid_index {
> >         MEM_AVOID_ZO_RANGE = 0,
> >         MEM_AVOID_INITRD,
> > @@ -117,15 +121,18 @@ parse_memmap(char *p, unsigned long long *start, unsigned long long *size)
> >                 return -EINVAL;
> >
> >         switch (*p) {
> > -       case '@':
> > -               /* Skip this region, usable */
> > -               *size = 0;
> > -               *start = 0;
> >         case '#':
> >         case '$':
> >         case '!':
> >                 *start = memparse(p + 1, &p);
> >                 return 0;
> > +       case '@':
> > +               /* Skip this region, usable */
> > +               *size = 0;
> 
> Now it looks like we're intentionally falling through. A comment
> should be included to indicate it.

Yes, as I replied in patch 2/4, it's intended. Will add comment to
indicate.

> 
> > +       default:
> > +               /* Avoid the region which is above the amount limit */
> > +               *start = 0;
> > +               return 0;
> >         }
> >
> >         return -EINVAL;
> > @@ -151,9 +158,14 @@ static void mem_avoid_memmap(char *str)
> >                 if (rc < 0)
> >                         break;
> >                 str = k;
> > -               /* A usable region that should not be skipped */
> > -               if (size == 0)
> > +
> > +               if (start == 0) {
> > +                       /* Store the specified memory limit if size > 0 */
> > +                       if (size > 0)
> > +                               mem_limit = size;
> > +
> >                         continue;
> > +               }
> >
> >                 mem_avoid[MEM_AVOID_MEMMAP_BEGIN + i].start = start;
> >                 mem_avoid[MEM_AVOID_MEMMAP_BEGIN + i].size = size;
> > @@ -173,6 +185,7 @@ static int handle_mem_memmap(void)
> >         char tmp_cmdline[COMMAND_LINE_SIZE];
> >         size_t len = strlen((char *)args);
> >         char *param, *val;
> > +       u64 mem_size;
> >
> >         len = (len >= COMMAND_LINE_SIZE) ? COMMAND_LINE_SIZE - 1 : len;
> >         memcpy(tmp_cmdline, args, len);
> > @@ -195,8 +208,18 @@ static int handle_mem_memmap(void)
> >                         return -1;
> >                 }
> >
> > -               if (!strcmp(param, "memmap"))
> > +               if (!strcmp(param, "memmap")) {
> >                         mem_avoid_memmap(val);
> > +               } else if (!strcmp(param, "mem")) {
> > +                       char *p = val;
> > +
> > +                       if (!strcmp(p, "nopentium"))
> > +                               continue;
> > +                       mem_size = memparse(p, &p);
> > +                       if (mem_size == 0)
> > +                               return -EINVAL;
> > +                       mem_limit = mem_size;
> > +               }
> >         }
> >
> >         return 0;
> > @@ -432,7 +455,8 @@ static void process_e820_entry(struct e820entry *entry,
> >  {
> >         struct mem_vector region, overlap;
> >         struct slot_area slot_area;
> > -       unsigned long start_orig;
> > +       unsigned long start_orig, end;
> > +       struct e820entry cur_entry;
> >
> >         /* Skip non-RAM entries. */
> >         if (entry->type != E820_RAM)
> > @@ -446,8 +470,15 @@ static void process_e820_entry(struct e820entry *entry,
> >         if (entry->addr + entry->size < minimum)
> >                 return;
> >
> > -       region.start = entry->addr;
> > -       region.size = entry->size;
> > +       /* Ignore entries above memory limit */
> > +       end = min(entry->size + entry->addr - 1, mem_limit);
> > +       if (entry->addr >= end)
> > +               return;
> > +       cur_entry.addr = entry->addr;
> > +       cur_entry.size = end - entry->addr + 1;
> > +
> > +       region.start = cur_entry.addr;
> > +       region.size = cur_entry.size;
> 
> I find the manipulation of entry->addr +/- 1 confusing; it should just
> be mem_limit that is adjusted:
> 
>     end = min(entry->size + entry->addr, mem_limit + 1);

The first one is preferred. Since if no memory limit specifed, we still have
a limit, 64T-1 or UULONG_MAX -1, in logic more understandable. And in
code lines it's less.

Will change with your suggestion.

Thanks a log for your comments!

> 
> And maybe to avoid mem_limit being giant by default, maybe have "0" be special?
> 
>     cur_entry.addr = entry->addr;
>     if (mem_limit) {
>          unsigned long end = min(entry->size + entry->addr, mem_limit + 1);
>          if (entry->addr > end)
>              return;
>          cur_entry.size = end - entry->addr;
>     } else {
>           cur_entry.size = entry->size;
>     }
> 
> or something... and maybe move the whole thing earlier so other tests
> that examine entry->size are checked with the new adjusted value.
> 
> -Kees
> 
> >
> >         /* Give up if slot area array is full. */
> >         while (slot_area_index < MAX_SLOT_AREA) {
> > @@ -461,7 +492,7 @@ static void process_e820_entry(struct e820entry *entry,
> >                 region.start = ALIGN(region.start, CONFIG_PHYSICAL_ALIGN);
> >
> >                 /* Did we raise the address above this e820 region? */
> > -               if (region.start > entry->addr + entry->size)
> > +               if (region.start > cur_entry.addr + cur_entry.size)
> >                         return;
> >
> >                 /* Reduce size by any delta from the original address. */
> > --
> > 2.5.5
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Kees Cook
> Pixel Security

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#1625761 — Re: [PATCH 3/4] KASLR: Handle memory limit specified by memmap and mem option

FromBaoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
Date2017-04-19 03:00 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/4] KASLR: Handle memory limit specified by memmap and mem option
Message-ID<txM8p-4NM-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1625642
On 04/19/17 at 08:50am, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 04/18/17 at 01:36pm, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 6:34 AM, Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > @@ -432,7 +455,8 @@ static void process_e820_entry(struct e820entry *entry,
> > >  {
> > >         struct mem_vector region, overlap;
> > >         struct slot_area slot_area;
> > > -       unsigned long start_orig;
> > > +       unsigned long start_orig, end;
> > > +       struct e820entry cur_entry;
> > >
> > >         /* Skip non-RAM entries. */
> > >         if (entry->type != E820_RAM)
> > > @@ -446,8 +470,15 @@ static void process_e820_entry(struct e820entry *entry,
> > >         if (entry->addr + entry->size < minimum)
> > >                 return;
> > >
> > > -       region.start = entry->addr;
> > > -       region.size = entry->size;
> > > +       /* Ignore entries above memory limit */
> > > +       end = min(entry->size + entry->addr - 1, mem_limit);
> > > +       if (entry->addr >= end)
> > > +               return;
> > > +       cur_entry.addr = entry->addr;
> > > +       cur_entry.size = end - entry->addr + 1;
> > > +
> > > +       region.start = cur_entry.addr;
> > > +       region.size = cur_entry.size;
> > 
> > I find the manipulation of entry->addr +/- 1 confusing; it should just
> > be mem_limit that is adjusted:
> > 
> >     end = min(entry->size + entry->addr, mem_limit + 1);
> 
> Oh, it should be like that. E.g if specify mem=4096M, it means available
	       ^not
> memory region are 0~4096M-1, or [0, 4096M). Here mem_limit = 4096M.
> Adding 1 could make it wrong.
> 
> > 
> > And maybe to avoid mem_limit being giant by default, maybe have "0" be special?
> > 
> >     cur_entry.addr = entry->addr;
> >     if (mem_limit) {
> >          unsigned long end = min(entry->size + entry->addr, mem_limit + 1);
> >          if (entry->addr > end)
> >              return;
> >          cur_entry.size = end - entry->addr;
> >     } else {
> >           cur_entry.size = entry->size;
> >     }
> > 
> > or something... and maybe move the whole thing earlier so other tests
> > that examine entry->size are checked with the new adjusted value.
> 
> Sorry, forget replying to this comment. I am fine with moving it
> earlier. In fact I put it here because there are many non-RAM e820
> entries below 4G, like ACPI, for them we even don't need check limit
> by the help of below check filtering. Maybe move it after below check?
> 
>         /* Skip non-RAM entries. */
>         if (entry->type != E820_RAM)
>                 return;
> 
> > 
> > -Kees
> > 
> > >
> > >         /* Give up if slot area array is full. */
> > >         while (slot_area_index < MAX_SLOT_AREA) {
> > > @@ -461,7 +492,7 @@ static void process_e820_entry(struct e820entry *entry,
> > >                 region.start = ALIGN(region.start, CONFIG_PHYSICAL_ALIGN);
> > >
> > >                 /* Did we raise the address above this e820 region? */
> > > -               if (region.start > entry->addr + entry->size)
> > > +               if (region.start > cur_entry.addr + cur_entry.size)
> > >                         return;
> > >
> > >                 /* Reduce size by any delta from the original address. */
> > > --
> > > 2.5.5
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Kees Cook
> > Pixel Security

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#1625762 — Re: [PATCH 3/4] KASLR: Handle memory limit specified by memmap and mem option

FromBaoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
Date2017-04-19 03:00 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/4] KASLR: Handle memory limit specified by memmap and mem option
Message-ID<txM8p-4NM-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1625642
On 04/18/17 at 01:36pm, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 6:34 AM, Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> wrote:
> > @@ -432,7 +455,8 @@ static void process_e820_entry(struct e820entry *entry,
> >  {
> >         struct mem_vector region, overlap;
> >         struct slot_area slot_area;
> > -       unsigned long start_orig;
> > +       unsigned long start_orig, end;
> > +       struct e820entry cur_entry;
> >
> >         /* Skip non-RAM entries. */
> >         if (entry->type != E820_RAM)
> > @@ -446,8 +470,15 @@ static void process_e820_entry(struct e820entry *entry,
> >         if (entry->addr + entry->size < minimum)
> >                 return;
> >
> > -       region.start = entry->addr;
> > -       region.size = entry->size;
> > +       /* Ignore entries above memory limit */
> > +       end = min(entry->size + entry->addr - 1, mem_limit);
> > +       if (entry->addr >= end)
> > +               return;
> > +       cur_entry.addr = entry->addr;
> > +       cur_entry.size = end - entry->addr + 1;
> > +
> > +       region.start = cur_entry.addr;
> > +       region.size = cur_entry.size;
> 
> I find the manipulation of entry->addr +/- 1 confusing; it should just
> be mem_limit that is adjusted:
> 
>     end = min(entry->size + entry->addr, mem_limit + 1);

Oh, it should be like that. E.g if specify mem=4096M, it means available
memory region are 0~4096M-1, or [0, 4096M). Here mem_limit = 4096M.
Adding 1 could make it wrong.

> 
> And maybe to avoid mem_limit being giant by default, maybe have "0" be special?
> 
>     cur_entry.addr = entry->addr;
>     if (mem_limit) {
>          unsigned long end = min(entry->size + entry->addr, mem_limit + 1);
>          if (entry->addr > end)
>              return;
>          cur_entry.size = end - entry->addr;
>     } else {
>           cur_entry.size = entry->size;
>     }
> 
> or something... and maybe move the whole thing earlier so other tests
> that examine entry->size are checked with the new adjusted value.

Sorry, forget replying to this comment. I am fine with moving it
earlier. In fact I put it here because there are many non-RAM e820
entries below 4G, like ACPI, for them we even don't need check limit
by the help of below check filtering. Maybe move it after below check?

        /* Skip non-RAM entries. */
        if (entry->type != E820_RAM)
                return;

> 
> -Kees
> 
> >
> >         /* Give up if slot area array is full. */
> >         while (slot_area_index < MAX_SLOT_AREA) {
> > @@ -461,7 +492,7 @@ static void process_e820_entry(struct e820entry *entry,
> >                 region.start = ALIGN(region.start, CONFIG_PHYSICAL_ALIGN);
> >
> >                 /* Did we raise the address above this e820 region? */
> > -               if (region.start > entry->addr + entry->size)
> > +               if (region.start > cur_entry.addr + cur_entry.size)
> >                         return;
> >
> >                 /* Reduce size by any delta from the original address. */
> > --
> > 2.5.5
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Kees Cook
> Pixel Security

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web