Re: [PATCH] arm64: mm: mark tramp_pg_dir read-only

[Will Deacon]

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 05:51:46PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 19 June 2018 at 17:50, Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 05:40:26PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >> On 19 June 2018 at 17:37, Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 05:29:03PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >> >> On 19 June 2018 at 17:28, Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 05:23:41PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >> >> >> On 19 June 2018 at 17:20, Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 11:53:20AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On 30 May 2018 at 11:14, Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 12:48:06PM +0800, YaoJun wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> >> >> >> >> >> index 2dbb2c9f1ec1..ac4b22c7e435 100644
> >> >> >> >> >> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> >> >> >> >> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> >> >> >> >> >> @@ -551,6 +551,10 @@ static int __init map_entry_trampoline(void)
> >> >> >> >> >>       __create_pgd_mapping(tramp_pg_dir, pa_start, TRAMP_VALIAS, PAGE_SIZE,
> >> >> >> >> >>                            prot, pgd_pgtable_alloc, 0);
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> +     update_mapping_prot(__pa_symbol(tramp_pg_dir),
> >> >> >> >> >> +                             (unsigned long)tramp_pg_dir,
> >> >> >> >> >> +                             PGD_SIZE, PAGE_KERNEL_RO);
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Hmm, I like the idea but is there a risk that the page table has been mapped
> >> >> >> >> > as part of a block entry, which we can't safely split at this point (i.e.
> >> >> >> >> > we'll run into one of the BUG_ONs in the mapping code)?
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> We'd need to create a separate segment for it initially so the mapping
> >> >> >> >> is already at the right granularity.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Why do you think that's the case? I can't see anything that guarantees this
> >> >> >> > for the page table itself.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> We'd need to pass NO_BLOCK_MAPPINGS to map_kernel_segment(),
> >> >> >> obviously, but that shouldn't hurt since that segment is relatively
> >> >> >> tiny anyway.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Ah right, with NO_BLOCK_MAPPINGS | NO_CONT_MAPPINGS, I agree that we're good.
> >> >> > Ideally, we'd move {idmap,swapper,tramp}_pg_dir into .rodata...
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> idmap and tramp yes, but swapper needs to be modifiable at runtime, no?
> >> >
> >> > Right, but couldn't we swizzle the permissions in e.g. set_pmd? We could
> >> > even predicate that on a sanity check of the prot.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Swizzle the permissions of the entire .rodata segment? That sounds
> >> doable, but there is a whole class of data that belongs in this
> >> category, and I think PaX/grsecurity had an API for that (but I don't
> >> think anyone is upstreaming that yet). So let's not reinvent that
> >> wheel for swapper_pg_dir only.
> >
> > I wasn't thinking of the whole .rodata segment -- just the page containing
> > the entry being modified, but ok.
> 
> That means we will need to map .rodata down to pages as well, or at
> least avoid contiguous mappings.

Doesn't it already avoid those?

Will