lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Oct]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: vmalloced stacks on x86_64?
On Oct 25, 2014 9:11 PM, "Frederic Weisbecker" <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2014-10-25 2:22 GMT+02:00 Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>:
> > Is there any good reason not to use vmalloc for x86_64 stacks?
> >
> > The tricky bits I've thought of are:
> >
> > - On any context switch, we probably need to probe the new stack
> > before switching to it. That way, if it's going to fault due to an
> > out-of-sync pgd, we still have a stack available to handle the fault.
>
> Would that prevent from any further fault on a vmalloc'ed kernel
> stack? We would need to ensure that pre-faulting, say the first byte,
> is enough to sync the whole new stack entirely otherwise we risk
> another future fault and some places really aren't safely faulted.
>

I think so. The vmalloc faults only happen when the entire top-level
page table entry is missing, and those cover giant swaths of address
space.

I don't know whether the vmalloc code guarantees not to span a pmd
(pud? why couldn't these be called pte0, pte1, pte2, etc.?) boundary.

--Andy

> >
> > - Any time we change cr3, we may need to check that the pgd
> > corresponding to rsp is there. If now, we need to sync it over.
> >
> > - For simplicity, we probably want all stack ptes to be present all
> > the time. This is fine; vmalloc already works that way.
> >
> > - If we overrun the stack, we double-fault. This should be easy to
> > detect: any double-fault where rsp is less than 20 bytes from the
> > bottom of the stack is a failure to deliver a non-IST exception due to
> > a stack overflow. The question is: what do we do if this happens?
> > We could just panic (guaranteed to work). We could also try to
> > recover by killing the offending task, but that might be a bit
> > challenging, since we're in IST context. We could do something truly
> > awful: increment RSP by a few hundred bytes, point RIP at do_exit, and
> > return from the double fault.
> >
> > Thoughts? This shouldn't be all that much code.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-10-26 07:21    [W:0.124 / U:0.692 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site