On 12/18/2017 03:42 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h
> @@ -1120,6 +1120,11 @@ static inline void pmdp_set_wrprotect(st
> static inline void clone_pgd_range(pgd_t *dst, pgd_t *src, int count)
> {
> memcpy(dst, src, count * sizeof(pgd_t));
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PAGE_TABLE_ISOLATION
> + /* Clone the user space pgd as well */
> + memcpy(kernel_to_user_pgdp(dst), kernel_to_user_pgdp(src),
> + count * sizeof(pgd_t));
> +#endif
> }
I was just thinking about this as I re-write the documentation about
where the overhead of pti comes from.
This obviously *works* for now. But, we certainly have the pti-mapped
stuff spread much less through the address space than when this was
thrown in here. It *seems* like we could probably do this with just 4 PGDs:
> pti_clone_user_shared();
> pti_clone_entry_text();
> pti_setup_espfix64();
> pti_setup_vsyscall();
The vsyscall is just one page and the espfix is *sized* to be one PGD,
so we know each of those only takes one entry.
We surely don't have 512GB of entry_text, and I don't think KASLR can
ever cause it to span two PGD entries.
I also don't think the user_shared area of the fixmap can get *that*
big. Does anybody know offhand what the theoretical limits are there?
