RE: [PATCH v8 08/10] x86, mpx: add prctl commands PR_MPX_REGISTER, PR_MPX_UNREGISTER

["Ren, Qiaowei" <qiaowei.ren@intel.com>]

On 2014-09-16, Kevin Easton wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 04:46:48PM +0800, Qiaowei Ren wrote:
>> +
>> +int mpx_register(struct task_struct *tsk) {
>> +	struct mm_struct *mm = tsk->mm;
>> +
>> +	if (!cpu_has_mpx)
>> +		return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * runtime in the userspace will be responsible for allocation of
>> +	 * the bounds directory. Then, it will save the base of the bounds
>> +	 * directory into XSAVE/XRSTOR Save Area and enable MPX through
>> +	 * XRSTOR instruction.
>> +	 *
>> +	 * fpu_xsave() is expected to be very expensive. In order to do
>> +	 * performance optimization, here we get the base of the bounds
>> +	 * directory and then save it into mm_struct to be used in future.
>> +	 */
>> +	mm->bd_addr = task_get_bounds_dir(tsk);
>> +	if (!mm->bd_addr)
>> +		return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> +	return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +int mpx_unregister(struct task_struct *tsk) {
>> +	struct mm_struct *mm = current->mm;
>> +
>> +	if (!cpu_has_mpx)
>> +		return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> +	mm->bd_addr = NULL;
>> +	return 0;
>> +}
> 
> If that's changed, then mpx_register() and mpx_unregister() don't need
> a task_struct, just an mm_struct.
> 
Yes. An mm_struct is enough.

> Probably these functions should be locking mmap_sem.
> 
> Would it be prudent to use an error code other than EINVAL for the
> "hardware doesn't support it" case?
>
Seems like no specific error code for this case.

>> @@ -2011,6 +2017,12 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(prctl, int, option, unsigned
> long, arg2, unsigned long, arg3,
>>  			me->mm->def_flags &= ~VM_NOHUGEPAGE;
>>  		up_write(&me->mm->mmap_sem);
>>  		break;
>> +	case PR_MPX_REGISTER:
>> +		error = MPX_REGISTER(me);
>> +		break;
>> +	case PR_MPX_UNREGISTER:
>> +		error = MPX_UNREGISTER(me);
>> +		break;
> 
> If you pass me->mm from prctl, that makes it clear that it's
> per-process not per-thread, just like PR_SET_DUMPABLE / PR_GET_DUMPABLE.
> 
> This code should also enforce nulls in arg2 / arg3 / arg4,/ arg5 if
> it's not using them, otherwise you'll be sunk if you ever want to use them later.
> 
> It seems like it only makes sense for all threads using the mm to have
> the same bounds directory set.  If the interface was changed to
> directly pass the address, then could the kernel take care of setting
> it for *all* of the threads in the process? This seems like something
> that would be easier for the kernel to do than userspace.
> 
If the interface was changed to this, it will be possible for insane application to pass error bounds directory address to kernel. We still have to call fpu_xsave() to check this.

Thanks,
Qiaowei

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>