On Sat, May 28, 2022 at 06:50:55AM +0000, Tong Tiangen wrote:
> If user access fail due to hardware memory error, only the relevant
> processes are affected, so killing the user process and isolate the
> error page with hardware memory errors is a more reasonable choice
> than kernel panic.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tong Tiangen <tongtian...@huawei.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/lib/copy_from_user.S | 8 ++++----
> arch/arm64/lib/copy_to_user.S | 8 ++++----
All of these changes are to the *kernel* accesses performed as part of copy
to/from user, and have nothing to do with userspace, so it does not make sense
to mark these as UACCESS.
Do we *actually* need to recover from failues on these accesses? Looking at
_copy_from_user(), the kernel will immediately follow this up with a memset()
to the same address which will be fatal anyway, so this is only punting the
failure for a few instructions.
If we really need to recover from certain accesses to kernel memory we should
add a new EX_TYPE_KACCESS_ERR_ZERO_MC or similar, but we need a strong
rationale as to why that's useful. As things stand I do not beleive it makes
sense for copy to/from user specifically.
> arch/arm64/mm/extable.c | 8 ++++----
> 3 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/lib/copy_from_user.S b/arch/arm64/lib/copy_from_user.S
> index 34e317907524..402dd48a4f93 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/lib/copy_from_user.S
> +++ b/arch/arm64/lib/copy_from_user.S
> @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@
> .endm
>
> .macro strb1 reg, ptr, val
> - strb \reg, [\ptr], \val
> + USER(9998f, strb \reg, [\ptr], \val)
> .endm
>
> .macro ldrh1 reg, ptr, val
> @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@
> .endm
>
> .macro strh1 reg, ptr, val
> - strh \reg, [\ptr], \val
> + USER(9998f, strh \reg, [\ptr], \val)
> .endm
>
> .macro ldr1 reg, ptr, val
> @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@
> .endm
>
> .macro str1 reg, ptr, val
> - str \reg, [\ptr], \val
> + USER(9998f, str \reg, [\ptr], \val)
> .endm
>
> .macro ldp1 reg1, reg2, ptr, val
> @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@
> .endm
>
> .macro stp1 reg1, reg2, ptr, val
> - stp \reg1, \reg2, [\ptr], \val
> + USER(9998f, stp \reg1, \reg2, [\ptr], \val)
> .endm
>
> end .req x5
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/lib/copy_to_user.S b/arch/arm64/lib/copy_to_user.S
> index 802231772608..4134bdb3a8b0 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/lib/copy_to_user.S
> +++ b/arch/arm64/lib/copy_to_user.S
> @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@
> * x0 - bytes not copied
> */
> .macro ldrb1 reg, ptr, val
> - ldrb \reg, [\ptr], \val
> + USER(9998f, ldrb \reg, [\ptr], \val)
> .endm
>
> .macro strb1 reg, ptr, val
> @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@
> .endm
>
> .macro ldrh1 reg, ptr, val
> - ldrh \reg, [\ptr], \val
> + USER(9998f, ldrh \reg, [\ptr], \val)
> .endm
>
> .macro strh1 reg, ptr, val
> @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@
> .endm
>
> .macro ldr1 reg, ptr, val
> - ldr \reg, [\ptr], \val
> + USER(9998f, ldr \reg, [\ptr], \val)
> .endm
>
> .macro str1 reg, ptr, val
> @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@
> .endm
>
> .macro ldp1 reg1, reg2, ptr, val
> - ldp \reg1, \reg2, [\ptr], \val
> + USER(9998f, ldp \reg1, \reg2, [\ptr], \val)
> .endm
>
> .macro stp1 reg1, reg2, ptr, val
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/extable.c b/arch/arm64/mm/extable.c
> index c301dcf6335f..8ca8d9639f9f 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/extable.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/extable.c
> @@ -86,10 +86,10 @@ bool fixup_exception_mc(struct pt_regs *regs)
> if (!ex)
> return false;
>
> - /*
> - * This is not complete, More Machine check safe extable type can
> - * be processed here.
> - */
> + switch (ex->type) {
> + case EX_TYPE_UACCESS_ERR_ZERO:
> + return ex_handler_uaccess_err_zero(ex, regs);
> + }
This addition specifically makes sense to me, so can you split this into a
separate patch?
Thanks,
Mark.
