Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-205775-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 18:00:44 +0800
From: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
To: Coiby Xu <coxu@redhat.com>
Cc: kexec@lists.infradead.org, Ondrej Kozina <okozina@redhat.com>,
	Milan Broz <gmazyland@gmail.com>,
	Thomas Staudt <tstaudt@de.ibm.com>,
	Daniel P =?iso-8859-1?Q?=2E_Berrang=E9?= <berrange@redhat.com>,
	Kairui Song <ryncsn@gmail.com>,
	Jan Pazdziora <jpazdziora@redhat.com>,
	Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@gmail.com>, Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
	Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 7/7] x86/crash: make the page that stores the dm crypt
 keys inaccessible
Message-ID: <ZmLaTJA6Vq1a9x5z@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
References: <20240523050451.788754-1-coxu@redhat.com>
 <20240523050451.788754-8-coxu@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240523050451.788754-8-coxu@redhat.com>

On 05/23/24 at 01:04pm, Coiby Xu wrote:
> This adds an addition layer of protection for the saved copy of dm
> crypt key. Trying to access the saved copy will cause page fault.
> 
> Suggested-by: Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Coiby Xu <coxu@redhat.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/machine_kexec_64.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/machine_kexec_64.c b/arch/x86/kernel/machine_kexec_64.c
> index b180d8e497c3..fc0a80f4254e 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/machine_kexec_64.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/machine_kexec_64.c
> @@ -545,13 +545,34 @@ static void kexec_mark_crashkres(bool protect)
>  	kexec_mark_range(control, crashk_res.end, protect);
>  }
>  
> +static void kexec_mark_dm_crypt_keys(bool protect)
> +{
> +	unsigned long start_paddr, end_paddr;
> +	unsigned int nr_pages;
> +
> +	if (kexec_crash_image->dm_crypt_keys_addr) {
> +		start_paddr = kexec_crash_image->dm_crypt_keys_addr;
> +		end_paddr = start_paddr + kexec_crash_image->dm_crypt_keys_sz - 1;
> +		nr_pages = (PAGE_ALIGN(end_paddr) - PAGE_ALIGN_DOWN(start_paddr))/PAGE_SIZE;
> +		if (protect)
> +			set_memory_np((unsigned long)phys_to_virt(start_paddr), nr_pages);
> +		else
> +			__set_memory_prot(
> +				(unsigned long)phys_to_virt(start_paddr),
> +				nr_pages,
> +				__pgprot(_PAGE_PRESENT | _PAGE_NX | _PAGE_RW));
> +	}
> +}
> +
>  void arch_kexec_protect_crashkres(void)
>  {
>  	kexec_mark_crashkres(true);
> +	kexec_mark_dm_crypt_keys(true);

Isn't crashkernel region covering crypt keys' storing region? Do we need
mark it again specifically? Not sure if I miss anything.

>  }
>  
>  void arch_kexec_unprotect_crashkres(void)
>  {
> +	kexec_mark_dm_crypt_keys(false);
>  	kexec_mark_crashkres(false);
>  }
>  #endif
> -- 
> 2.45.0
>