Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <8ef7a71b-fd0d-f86e-98bc-0a9cffc79207@huawei.com>
Date:   Sat, 9 Apr 2022 17:17:40 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH -next V2 5/7] arm64: add get_user to machine check
 safe
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
CC:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, <x86@kernel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>
References: <20220406091311.3354723-1-tongtiangen@huawei.com>
 <20220406091311.3354723-6-tongtiangen@huawei.com>
 <Yk14AwR92MX0LKqZ@FVFF77S0Q05N>
 <ac80045b-24f0-a163-ea96-be0d01c48d29@huawei.com> <YlBTLn1cf7+gJmiM@lakrids>
From:   Tong Tiangen <tongtiangen@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <YlBTLn1cf7+gJmiM@lakrids>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk


在 2022/4/8 23:22, Mark Rutland 写道:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 10:38:04PM +0800, Tong Tiangen wrote:
>> 在 2022/4/6 19:22, Mark Rutland 写道:
>>> On Wed, Apr 06, 2022 at 09:13:09AM +0000, Tong Tiangen wrote:
>>>> Add scenarios get_user to machine check safe. The processing of
>>>> EX_TYPE_UACCESS_ERR_ZERO and EX_TYPE_UACCESS_ERR_ZERO_UCE_RECOVERY is same
>>>> and both return -EFAULT.
>>>
>>> Which uaccess cases do we expect to *not* be recoverable?
>>>
>>> Naively I would assume that if we're going to treat a memory error on a uaccess
>>> as fatal to userspace we should be able to do that for *any* uacesses.
>>>
>>> The commit message should explain why we need the distinction between a
>>> recoverable uaccess and a non-recoverable uaccess.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Mark.
>>
>> Currently, any memory error consumed in kernel mode will lead to panic
>> (do_sea()).
>>
>> My idea is that not all memory errors consumed in kernel mode are fatal,
>> such as copy_ from_ user/get_ user is a memory error consumed when
>> reading user data in the process context. In this case, we can not let the
>> kernel panic, just kill the process without affecting the operation
>> of the system.
> 
> I understood this part.
> 
>> However, not all uaccess can be recovered without affecting the normal
>> operation of the system. The key is not whether it is uaccess, but whether
>> there are key data affecting the normal operation of the system in the read
>> page.
> 
> Ok. Can you give an example of such a case where the a uaccess that hits
> a memory error must be fatal?
> 
> I think you might be trying to say that for copy_{to,from}_user() we can
> make that judgement, but those are combined user+kernel access
> primitives, and the *uaccess* part should never be reading from a page
> with "key data affecting the normal operation of the system", since
> that's userspace memory.
> 
> Is there any *userspace access* (e.g. where we use LDTR/STTR today)
> where we must treat a memory error as fatal to the system?
> 
> Thanks,
> Mark.
> .

I seem to understand what you mean.
Take copy_to_user()/put_user() as an example. If it encounters memory 
error, only related processes will be affected. According to this 
understanding, it seems that all uaccess can be recovered.

Thanks,
Tong.