Le 15/03/2024 à 03:57, Benjamin Gray a écrit : > The patching page set up as a writable alias may be in quadrant 1 > (userspace) if the temporary mm path is used. This causes sanitiser > failures if so. Sanitiser failures also occur on the non-mm path > because the plain memset family is instrumented, and KASAN treats the > patching window as poisoned. > > Introduce locally defined patch_* variants of memset that perform an > uninstrumented lower level set, as well as detecting write errors like > the original single patch variant does. > > copy_to_user() is not correct here, as the PTE makes it a proper kernel > page (the EEA is privileged access only, RW). It just happens to be in > quadrant 1 because that's the hardware's mechanism for using the current > PID vs PID 0 in translations. Importantly, it's incorrect to allow user > page accesses. > > Now that the patching memsets are used, we also propagate a failure up > to the caller as the single patch variant does. > > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Gray <bg...@linux.ibm.com> > > --- > > The patch_memcpy() can be optimised to 4 bytes at a time assuming the > same requirements as regular instruction patching are being followed > for the 'copy sequence of instructions' mode (i.e., they actually are > instructions following instruction alignment rules).
Why not use copy_to_kernel_nofault() ? > --- > arch/powerpc/lib/code-patching.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/lib/code-patching.c > b/arch/powerpc/lib/code-patching.c > index c6ab46156cda..c6633759b509 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/lib/code-patching.c > +++ b/arch/powerpc/lib/code-patching.c > @@ -372,9 +372,43 @@ int patch_instruction(u32 *addr, ppc_inst_t instr) > } > NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(patch_instruction); > > +static int patch_memset64(u64 *addr, u64 val, size_t count) > +{ > + for (u64 *end = addr + count; addr < end; addr++) > + __put_kernel_nofault(addr, &val, u64, failed); > + > + return 0; > + > +failed: > + return -EPERM; Is it correct ? Shouldn't it be -EFAULT ? > +} > + > +static int patch_memset32(u32 *addr, u32 val, size_t count) > +{ > + for (u32 *end = addr + count; addr < end; addr++) > + __put_kernel_nofault(addr, &val, u32, failed); > + > + return 0; > + > +failed: > + return -EPERM; > +} > + > +static int patch_memcpy(void *dst, void *src, size_t len) > +{ > + for (void *end = src + len; src < end; dst++, src++) > + __put_kernel_nofault(dst, src, u8, failed); > + > + return 0; > + > +failed: > + return -EPERM; > +} > + > static int __patch_instructions(u32 *patch_addr, u32 *code, size_t len, > bool repeat_instr) > { > unsigned long start = (unsigned long)patch_addr; > + int err; > > /* Repeat instruction */ > if (repeat_instr) { > @@ -383,19 +417,19 @@ static int __patch_instructions(u32 *patch_addr, u32 > *code, size_t len, bool rep > if (ppc_inst_prefixed(instr)) { > u64 val = ppc_inst_as_ulong(instr); > > - memset64((u64 *)patch_addr, val, len / 8); > + err = patch_memset64((u64 *)patch_addr, val, len / 8); > } else { > u32 val = ppc_inst_val(instr); > > - memset32(patch_addr, val, len / 4); > + err = patch_memset32(patch_addr, val, len / 4); > } > } else { > - memcpy(patch_addr, code, len); > + err = patch_memcpy(patch_addr, code, len); Use copy_to_kernel_nofault() instead of open coding a new less optimised version of it. > } > > smp_wmb(); /* smp write barrier */ > flush_icache_range(start, start + len); > - return 0; > + return err; > } > > /*