I ran some tests and did some quick napkin math. Based on the time it
takes to perform the SetMemoryAttributes() routine on QEMU, as long as
<79% of the calls to ApplyMemoryProtectionPolicy() actually require a
subsequent call to SetMemoryAttributes(), it is more efficient to walk
the page/translation table to check if the attributes actually need to
be updated. Even on a platform with varied NX policy settings, the
number of times the attributes need to be updated is less than 0.0005%
of all calls to ApplyMemoryProtectionPolicy() (likely due to most
allocations being BootServicesData).
Once the ARM and X64 implementations of the Memory Attribute Protocol
are in, would you be open to updating this block to utilize the protocol
to check the attributes of the region being updated?
On 2/8/2023 10:25 AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 at 18:58, Ard Biesheuvel <a...@kernel.org> wrote:
Instead of relying on a questionable heuristic that avoids calling into
the SetMemoryAttributes () DXE service when the old memory type and the
new one are subjected to the same NX memory protection policy, make this
call unconditionally. This avoids corner cases where memory region
attributes are out of sync with the policy, either due to the fact that
we are in the middle of ramping up the protections, or due to explicit
invocations of SetMemoryAttributes() by drivers.
This requires the architecture page table code to be able to deal with
this, in particular, it needs to be robust against potential recursion
due to NX policies being applied to newly allocated page tables.
Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <a...@kernel.org>
---
MdeModulePkg/Core/Dxe/Misc/MemoryProtection.c | 29 --------------------
1 file changed, 29 deletions(-)
diff --git a/MdeModulePkg/Core/Dxe/Misc/MemoryProtection.c
b/MdeModulePkg/Core/Dxe/Misc/MemoryProtection.c
index 36987843f142..503feb72b5d0 100644
--- a/MdeModulePkg/Core/Dxe/Misc/MemoryProtection.c
+++ b/MdeModulePkg/Core/Dxe/Misc/MemoryProtection.c
@@ -1263,9 +1263,7 @@ ApplyMemoryProtectionPolicy (
IN UINT64 Length
)
{
- UINT64 OldAttributes;
UINT64 NewAttributes;
- EFI_STATUS Status;
//
// The policy configured in PcdDxeNxMemoryProtectionPolicy
@@ -1320,32 +1318,5 @@ ApplyMemoryProtectionPolicy (
//
NewAttributes = GetPermissionAttributeForMemoryType (NewType);
- if (OldType != EfiMaxMemoryType) {
- OldAttributes = GetPermissionAttributeForMemoryType (OldType);
- if (!mAfterDxeNxMemoryProtectionInit &&
- (OldAttributes == NewAttributes)) {
- return EFI_SUCCESS;
- }
-
This removes some code that does not actually exist - apologies.
It comes down to just removing the conditional checks here, though,
and perform the tail call below unconditionally.
- //
- // If available, use the EFI memory attribute protocol to obtain
- // the current attributes of the region. If the entire region is
- // covered and the attributes match, we don't have to do anything.
- //
- if (mMemoryAttribute != NULL) {
- Status = mMemoryAttribute->GetMemoryAttributes (mMemoryAttribute,
- Memory,
- Length,
- &OldAttributes
- );
- if (!EFI_ERROR (Status) && (OldAttributes == NewAttributes)) {
- return EFI_SUCCESS;
- }
- }
- } else if (NewAttributes == 0) {
- // newly added region of a type that does not require protection
- return EFI_SUCCESS;
- }
-
return gCpu->SetMemoryAttributes (gCpu, Memory, Length, NewAttributes);
}
--
2.39.1
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#99814): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/99814
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/96835917/21656
Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
