From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87A76C3DA4A for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2024 16:01:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 07FB76B0089; Thu, 1 Aug 2024 12:01:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 02FE96B008C; Thu, 1 Aug 2024 12:01:36 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id E39CB6B0092; Thu, 1 Aug 2024 12:01:35 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0011.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.11]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C72886B0089 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2024 12:01:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin10.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay06.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB81CA79B7 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2024 16:01:34 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 82404141708.10.35FB4AC Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by imf09.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F8D31400B3 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2024 16:01:15 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf09.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=arm.com; spf=pass (imf09.hostedemail.com: domain of joey.gouly@arm.com designates 217.140.110.172 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=joey.gouly@arm.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1722528020; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=PiMwaMc8wzgglfoRWTBN4B+TFX0qe51di2ecIzZQbyM=; b=VvDnKZBqS6MCnffXKJ8XmOLm4Q1Gb5F7TlH4kEmgTcv/OJxYLYJjpwvVd4FBVn3IU4fYwV 3NOTMWzcnPzM6TksqhOxbeo39kcWIiqK6A2R/5oZDKsQBxHfqlKTBvSycb4zbEKqG4PKqJ 24WiiFX8jkg1yMDl4GZ1nRKPaWCeSEE= ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1722528020; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=nDhDazW2dtIRuWjTRdulZHpCrix5jLJyfkY0tPx3nLmWHCzmCZ6oz+Iz62RK0zR2IpaEZu oxEdgyJQ9hFdB13hbHOy4V98SSdtZ/my95Y1HsIDr6AJZ8bJiBVWQPlVY8Pm0dYU04lymD qnpsqc87/A6QMMB3aIFNXp9fCJjdTVw= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf09.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=arm.com; spf=pass (imf09.hostedemail.com: domain of joey.gouly@arm.com designates 217.140.110.172 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=joey.gouly@arm.com Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC5A81007; Thu, 1 Aug 2024 09:01:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e124191.cambridge.arm.com (e124191.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.197.45]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 312AE3F5A1; Thu, 1 Aug 2024 09:01:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 17:01:10 +0100 From: Joey Gouly To: Dave Martin Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, aneesh.kumar@kernel.org, aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com, bp@alien8.de, broonie@kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, hpa@zytor.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, maz@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, mpe@ellerman.id.au, naveen.n.rao@linux.ibm.com, npiggin@gmail.com, oliver.upton@linux.dev, shuah@kernel.org, szabolcs.nagy@arm.com, tglx@linutronix.de, will@kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 15/29] arm64: handle PKEY/POE faults Message-ID: <20240801160110.GC841837@e124191.cambridge.arm.com> References: <20240503130147.1154804-1-joey.gouly@arm.com> <20240503130147.1154804-16-joey.gouly@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 1F8D31400B3 X-Stat-Signature: 6om7npu4m33ypw8c7z3wtwk15hbnx1tx X-Rspamd-Server: rspam09 X-Rspam-User: X-HE-Tag: 1722528075-341573 X-HE-Meta: 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 h6RMiYSE gnoQWZ/IdrB5cKgMsjNn7EDumxMWqf8ZVnfkkISxCrRrUGZKV5oe9H296kI0PtmphQKgagleuJ+sP0kwxIju+TiaDC7lVj8tSlIXsLyWdMwAczMB8bvdr72EVpOk5J8LNC7blL/MUCiYkze7Iq0kikIRgGOt0TppUGWafa92n++5/gNiBLyooMQrp3ZcVnXBsI7M+ZGznbDbnlwz7MSAyePu1etG769QibNxuzxq8Hjo7UEuS8oNY1NHVJtpHcFwXpZxNoqQtjEt33as= X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 04:57:09PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote: > On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 02:01:33PM +0100, Joey Gouly wrote: > > 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 > > Cc: Catalin Marinas > > Cc: Will Deacon > > --- > > 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) > > ...? > > > > 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 - 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); + else + arm64_force_sig_fault(SIGSEGV, si_code, far, inf->name); Thanks, Joey