* [PATCH v2 1/1] x86/boot/compressed: Fix avoiding memmap in physical KASLR
@ 2025-10-22 23:37 Michal Clapinski
2025-10-23 8:24 ` Ard Biesheuvel
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Michal Clapinski @ 2025-10-22 23:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, Dave Hansen,
Chris Li, x86
Cc: H. Peter Anvin, Ard Biesheuvel, Michal Clapinski, Dan Williams,
Pasha Tatashin, linux-kernel
The intent of the code was to cancel KASLR if there are more than 4
memmap args. Unfortunately, it was only doing that if the memmap args
were comma delimited, not if they were entirely separate.
So it would disable physical KASLR for:
memmap=1G!4G,1G!5G,1G!6G,1G!7G,1G!8G
since the whole function is just called once and we hit the `if` at
the end of the function.
But it would not disable physical KASLR for:
memmap=1G!4G memmap=1G!5G memmap=1G!6G memmap=1G!7G memmap=1G!8G
since the whole function would be called 5 times and the last `if`
would never trigger.
For the second input, the code would avoid the first 4 memmap regions
but not the last one (it could put the kernel there).
The new code disables physical KASLR for both of those inputs.
Signed-off-by: Michal Clapinski <mclapinski@google.com>
Suggested-by: Chris Li <chrisl@kernel.org>
Fixes: d52e7d5a952c ("x86/KASLR: Parse all 'memmap=' boot option entries")
---
The patch was suggested by Chris and I modified it a little without his
knowledge. I don't know which tags are appropriate.
---
arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c | 18 +++++++++---------
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c
index 3b0948ad449f..649264503ce6 100644
--- a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c
+++ b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c
@@ -162,14 +162,18 @@ static void mem_avoid_memmap(char *str)
{
static int i;
- if (i >= MAX_MEMMAP_REGIONS)
- return;
-
- while (str && (i < MAX_MEMMAP_REGIONS)) {
+ while (str) {
int rc;
u64 start, size;
- char *k = strchr(str, ',');
+ char *k;
+
+ if (i >= MAX_MEMMAP_REGIONS) {
+ /* Too many memmap regions, disable physical KASLR. */
+ memmap_too_large = true;
+ return;
+ }
+ k = strchr(str, ',');
if (k)
*k++ = 0;
@@ -190,10 +194,6 @@ static void mem_avoid_memmap(char *str)
mem_avoid[MEM_AVOID_MEMMAP_BEGIN + i].size = size;
i++;
}
-
- /* More than 4 memmaps, fail kaslr */
- if ((i >= MAX_MEMMAP_REGIONS) && str)
- memmap_too_large = true;
}
/* Store the number of 1GB huge pages which users specified: */
--
2.51.1.814.gb8fa24458f-goog
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] x86/boot/compressed: Fix avoiding memmap in physical KASLR
2025-10-22 23:37 [PATCH v2 1/1] x86/boot/compressed: Fix avoiding memmap in physical KASLR Michal Clapinski
@ 2025-10-23 8:24 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2025-10-23 18:30 ` Chris Li
2025-10-23 23:33 ` Michał Cłapiński
2025-10-23 20:29 ` Dave Hansen
2025-11-06 14:59 ` Michał Cłapiński
2 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Ard Biesheuvel @ 2025-10-23 8:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michal Clapinski
Cc: Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, Dave Hansen,
Chris Li, x86, H. Peter Anvin, Dan Williams, Pasha Tatashin,
linux-kernel
Hi Michal,
Thanks for the patch.
On Thu, 23 Oct 2025 at 01:37, Michal Clapinski <mclapinski@google.com> wrote:
>
> The intent of the code was to cancel KASLR if there are more than 4
> memmap args. Unfortunately, it was only doing that if the memmap args
> were comma delimited, not if they were entirely separate.
> So it would disable physical KASLR for:
> memmap=1G!4G,1G!5G,1G!6G,1G!7G,1G!8G
> since the whole function is just called once and we hit the `if` at
> the end of the function.
>
> But it would not disable physical KASLR for:
> memmap=1G!4G memmap=1G!5G memmap=1G!6G memmap=1G!7G memmap=1G!8G
> since the whole function would be called 5 times and the last `if`
> would never trigger.
>
> For the second input, the code would avoid the first 4 memmap regions
> but not the last one (it could put the kernel there).
>
> The new code disables physical KASLR for both of those inputs.
>
Should we just disable physical KASLR if memmap= appears at all?
> Signed-off-by: Michal Clapinski <mclapinski@google.com>
> Suggested-by: Chris Li <chrisl@kernel.org>
> Fixes: d52e7d5a952c ("x86/KASLR: Parse all 'memmap=' boot option entries")
> ---
> The patch was suggested by Chris and I modified it a little without his
> knowledge. I don't know which tags are appropriate.
I think this is fine, unless Chris has a different opinion? In any
case, you might add a link to the original submission.
> ---
> arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c | 18 +++++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c
> index 3b0948ad449f..649264503ce6 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c
> @@ -162,14 +162,18 @@ static void mem_avoid_memmap(char *str)
> {
> static int i;
>
> - if (i >= MAX_MEMMAP_REGIONS)
> - return;
> -
> - while (str && (i < MAX_MEMMAP_REGIONS)) {
> + while (str) {
> int rc;
> u64 start, size;
> - char *k = strchr(str, ',');
> + char *k;
> +
> + if (i >= MAX_MEMMAP_REGIONS) {
> + /* Too many memmap regions, disable physical KASLR. */
> + memmap_too_large = true;
> + return;
> + }
>
> + k = strchr(str, ',');
> if (k)
> *k++ = 0;
>
> @@ -190,10 +194,6 @@ static void mem_avoid_memmap(char *str)
> mem_avoid[MEM_AVOID_MEMMAP_BEGIN + i].size = size;
> i++;
> }
> -
> - /* More than 4 memmaps, fail kaslr */
> - if ((i >= MAX_MEMMAP_REGIONS) && str)
> - memmap_too_large = true;
> }
>
> /* Store the number of 1GB huge pages which users specified: */
> --
> 2.51.1.814.gb8fa24458f-goog
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] x86/boot/compressed: Fix avoiding memmap in physical KASLR
2025-10-23 8:24 ` Ard Biesheuvel
@ 2025-10-23 18:30 ` Chris Li
2025-10-23 23:33 ` Michał Cłapiński
1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Chris Li @ 2025-10-23 18:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ard Biesheuvel
Cc: Michal Clapinski, Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov,
Dave Hansen, x86, H. Peter Anvin, Dan Williams, Pasha Tatashin,
linux-kernel
On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 1:25 AM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Michal,
>
> Thanks for the patch.
>
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2025 at 01:37, Michal Clapinski <mclapinski@google.com> wrote:
>
> > Signed-off-by: Michal Clapinski <mclapinski@google.com>
> > Suggested-by: Chris Li <chrisl@kernel.org>
> > Fixes: d52e7d5a952c ("x86/KASLR: Parse all 'memmap=' boot option entries")
> > ---
> > The patch was suggested by Chris and I modified it a little without his
> > knowledge. I don't know which tags are appropriate.
>
> I think this is fine, unless Chris has a different opinion? In any
No objection. I recall I had a discussion with Michal in which I
wanted to simplify the global variable "memmap_too_large" state
machine but failed at keeping it meaningfully simpler and also covered
all the corner cases. Nice try on my side I guess.
Right now the memmap_too_large state machine is still a bit tricky to
understand the precise execution flow, but it is the best we can do.
Acked-by: Chris Li <chrisl@kernel.org>
Chris
> case, you might add a link to the original submission.
>
>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c | 18 +++++++++---------
> > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c
> > index 3b0948ad449f..649264503ce6 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c
> > @@ -162,14 +162,18 @@ static void mem_avoid_memmap(char *str)
> > {
> > static int i;
> >
> > - if (i >= MAX_MEMMAP_REGIONS)
> > - return;
> > -
> > - while (str && (i < MAX_MEMMAP_REGIONS)) {
> > + while (str) {
> > int rc;
> > u64 start, size;
> > - char *k = strchr(str, ',');
> > + char *k;
> > +
> > + if (i >= MAX_MEMMAP_REGIONS) {
> > + /* Too many memmap regions, disable physical KASLR. */
> > + memmap_too_large = true;
> > + return;
> > + }
> >
> > + k = strchr(str, ',');
> > if (k)
> > *k++ = 0;
> >
> > @@ -190,10 +194,6 @@ static void mem_avoid_memmap(char *str)
> > mem_avoid[MEM_AVOID_MEMMAP_BEGIN + i].size = size;
> > i++;
> > }
> > -
> > - /* More than 4 memmaps, fail kaslr */
> > - if ((i >= MAX_MEMMAP_REGIONS) && str)
> > - memmap_too_large = true;
> > }
> >
> > /* Store the number of 1GB huge pages which users specified: */
> > --
> > 2.51.1.814.gb8fa24458f-goog
> >
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] x86/boot/compressed: Fix avoiding memmap in physical KASLR
2025-10-22 23:37 [PATCH v2 1/1] x86/boot/compressed: Fix avoiding memmap in physical KASLR Michal Clapinski
2025-10-23 8:24 ` Ard Biesheuvel
@ 2025-10-23 20:29 ` Dave Hansen
2025-10-23 23:23 ` Michał Cłapiński
2025-11-06 14:59 ` Michał Cłapiński
2 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Dave Hansen @ 2025-10-23 20:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michal Clapinski, Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov,
Dave Hansen, Chris Li, x86
Cc: H. Peter Anvin, Ard Biesheuvel, Dan Williams, Pasha Tatashin,
linux-kernel
On 10/22/25 16:37, Michal Clapinski wrote:
...
> But it would not disable physical KASLR for:
> memmap=1G!4G memmap=1G!5G memmap=1G!6G memmap=1G!7G memmap=1G!8G
> since the whole function would be called 5 times and the last `if`
> would never trigger.
I'm missing something about how this works.
The:
static int i;
is static so should be keeping state across function calls. For the
purposes of checking 'i', why does it matter if the function is called
one time with 5 arguments or 5 times with 1? Doesn't 'i' end up at the
same value either way?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] x86/boot/compressed: Fix avoiding memmap in physical KASLR
2025-10-23 20:29 ` Dave Hansen
@ 2025-10-23 23:23 ` Michał Cłapiński
2025-10-24 18:21 ` Dave Hansen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Michał Cłapiński @ 2025-10-23 23:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Hansen
Cc: Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, Dave Hansen,
Chris Li, x86, H. Peter Anvin, Ard Biesheuvel, Dan Williams,
Pasha Tatashin, linux-kernel
On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 1:29 PM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/22/25 16:37, Michal Clapinski wrote:
> ...
> > But it would not disable physical KASLR for:
> > memmap=1G!4G memmap=1G!5G memmap=1G!6G memmap=1G!7G memmap=1G!8G
> > since the whole function would be called 5 times and the last `if`
> > would never trigger.
>
> I'm missing something about how this works.
>
> The:
>
> static int i;
>
> is static so should be keeping state across function calls. For the
> purposes of checking 'i', why does it matter if the function is called
> one time with 5 arguments or 5 times with 1? Doesn't 'i' end up at the
> same value either way?
Sorry for not explaining it better (again).
Let's look at the original function:
static void mem_avoid_memmap(char *str)
{
static int i;
if (i >= MAX_MEMMAP_REGIONS)
return;
while (str && (i < MAX_MEMMAP_REGIONS)) {
int rc;
u64 start, size;
char *k = strchr(str, ',');
if (k)
*k++ = 0;
rc = parse_memmap(str, &start, &size);
if (rc < 0)
break;
str = k;
if (start == 0) {
/* Store the specified memory limit if size > 0 */
if (size > 0 && size < mem_limit)
mem_limit = size;
continue;
}
mem_avoid[MEM_AVOID_MEMMAP_BEGIN + i].start = start;
mem_avoid[MEM_AVOID_MEMMAP_BEGIN + i].size = size;
i++;
}
/* More than 4 memmaps, fail kaslr */
if ((i >= MAX_MEMMAP_REGIONS) && str)
memmap_too_large = true;
}
If called once, the `i` gets to 4 and the while loop exits. Then the
last if executes, since `i` is equal to MAX_MEMMAP_REGIONS and `str`
is non-null (if there are more than 4 memmap regions provided). So
memmap_too_large is set and kaslr is disabled.
If called 5 times, on the 4th time `i` will indeed be also equal to 4
but the last `if` never executes since `str` is null. On the 5th time,
we exit the function via the first `if` and memmap_too_large never
gets set.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] x86/boot/compressed: Fix avoiding memmap in physical KASLR
2025-10-23 8:24 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2025-10-23 18:30 ` Chris Li
@ 2025-10-23 23:33 ` Michał Cłapiński
1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Michał Cłapiński @ 2025-10-23 23:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ard Biesheuvel
Cc: Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, Dave Hansen,
Chris Li, x86, H. Peter Anvin, Dan Williams, Pasha Tatashin,
linux-kernel
On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 1:25 AM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Michal,
>
> Thanks for the patch.
>
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2025 at 01:37, Michal Clapinski <mclapinski@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > The intent of the code was to cancel KASLR if there are more than 4
> > memmap args. Unfortunately, it was only doing that if the memmap args
> > were comma delimited, not if they were entirely separate.
> > So it would disable physical KASLR for:
> > memmap=1G!4G,1G!5G,1G!6G,1G!7G,1G!8G
> > since the whole function is just called once and we hit the `if` at
> > the end of the function.
> >
> > But it would not disable physical KASLR for:
> > memmap=1G!4G memmap=1G!5G memmap=1G!6G memmap=1G!7G memmap=1G!8G
> > since the whole function would be called 5 times and the last `if`
> > would never trigger.
> >
> > For the second input, the code would avoid the first 4 memmap regions
> > but not the last one (it could put the kernel there).
> >
> > The new code disables physical KASLR for both of those inputs.
> >
>
> Should we just disable physical KASLR if memmap= appears at all?
It would indeed fix my issue. I don't know how much security physical
KASLR provides but I'm not sure disabling security features instead of
fixing them is a good pattern.
I would actually prefer to significantly increase the
MAX_MEMMAP_REGIONS to something like 2 * MAX_NUMNODES but I'm not sure
if creating such a big static array is okay.
> > Signed-off-by: Michal Clapinski <mclapinski@google.com>
> > Suggested-by: Chris Li <chrisl@kernel.org>
> > Fixes: d52e7d5a952c ("x86/KASLR: Parse all 'memmap=' boot option entries")
> > ---
> > The patch was suggested by Chris and I modified it a little without his
> > knowledge. I don't know which tags are appropriate.
>
> I think this is fine, unless Chris has a different opinion? In any
> case, you might add a link to the original submission.
Will do in v2 if otherwise people are okay with this patch.
[snip]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] x86/boot/compressed: Fix avoiding memmap in physical KASLR
2025-10-23 23:23 ` Michał Cłapiński
@ 2025-10-24 18:21 ` Dave Hansen
2025-10-24 21:27 ` Michał Cłapiński
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Dave Hansen @ 2025-10-24 18:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michał Cłapiński
Cc: Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, Dave Hansen,
Chris Li, x86, H. Peter Anvin, Ard Biesheuvel, Dan Williams,
Pasha Tatashin, linux-kernel
On 10/23/25 16:23, Michał Cłapiński wrote:
...
> If called 5 times, on the 4th time `i` will indeed be also equal to 4
> but the last `if` never executes since `str` is null. On the 5th time,
> we exit the function via the first `if` and memmap_too_large never
> gets set.
Ahh, thanks for the explanation. The implication of the first `if` is
what I was missing.
How about we just move the `if` you suggested. Let's put it right next
to the i++ so that they're *obviously* connected and the moment `i` gets
too big, the very next thing that happens is setting `memmap_too_large`
and jumping out of the function.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] x86/boot/compressed: Fix avoiding memmap in physical KASLR
2025-10-24 18:21 ` Dave Hansen
@ 2025-10-24 21:27 ` Michał Cłapiński
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Michał Cłapiński @ 2025-10-24 21:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Hansen
Cc: Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, Dave Hansen,
Chris Li, x86, H. Peter Anvin, Ard Biesheuvel, Dan Williams,
Pasha Tatashin, linux-kernel
On Fri, Oct 24, 2025 at 11:21 AM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/23/25 16:23, Michał Cłapiński wrote:
> ...
> > If called 5 times, on the 4th time `i` will indeed be also equal to 4
> > but the last `if` never executes since `str` is null. On the 5th time,
> > we exit the function via the first `if` and memmap_too_large never
> > gets set.
>
> Ahh, thanks for the explanation. The implication of the first `if` is
> what I was missing.
>
> How about we just move the `if` you suggested. Let's put it right next
> to the i++ so that they're *obviously* connected and the moment `i` gets
> too big, the very next thing that happens is setting `memmap_too_large`
> and jumping out of the function.
I might be misunderstanding but I don't see how that would work. When
`i` gets to 4, it's perfectly fine. That means we parsed 4 memmap
regions. I can't fail then. But if `i` gets to 5, it's already too
late. It would mean I've committed an out-of-bounds write.
We should fail only if `i` gets to 4 and there is more data. In the
case of calling the function 5 separate times, we don't know whether
there will be more data.
The check would have to be before `i++`. But then we're unnecessarily
parsing the argument. So we should move the check before the parsing.
And then we arrive at the code I proposed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] x86/boot/compressed: Fix avoiding memmap in physical KASLR
2025-10-22 23:37 [PATCH v2 1/1] x86/boot/compressed: Fix avoiding memmap in physical KASLR Michal Clapinski
2025-10-23 8:24 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2025-10-23 20:29 ` Dave Hansen
@ 2025-11-06 14:59 ` Michał Cłapiński
2025-11-06 15:48 ` Dave Hansen
2 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Michał Cłapiński @ 2025-11-06 14:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, Dave Hansen,
Chris Li, x86
Cc: H. Peter Anvin, Ard Biesheuvel, Dan Williams, Pasha Tatashin,
linux-kernel
On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 1:37 AM Michal Clapinski <mclapinski@google.com> wrote:
...
Ping. It's been 2 weeks. I'm sure there are ways to improve this code
even more but I truly believe it's better than it was since it's just
a bugfix.
Are there any changes I should make to this?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] x86/boot/compressed: Fix avoiding memmap in physical KASLR
2025-11-06 14:59 ` Michał Cłapiński
@ 2025-11-06 15:48 ` Dave Hansen
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Dave Hansen @ 2025-11-06 15:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michał Cłapiński, Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar,
Borislav Petkov, Dave Hansen, Chris Li, x86
Cc: H. Peter Anvin, Ard Biesheuvel, Dan Williams, Pasha Tatashin,
linux-kernel
On 11/6/25 06:59, Michał Cłapiński wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 1:37 AM Michal Clapinski <mclapinski@google.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> Ping. It's been 2 weeks. I'm sure there are ways to improve this code
> even more but I truly believe it's better than it was since it's just
> a bugfix.
>
> Are there any changes I should make to this?
You've gotten feedback and a couple of questions. You also indicated you
were going to post a v2. The next step would be to post a v2, I think.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2025-11-06 15:48 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2025-10-22 23:37 [PATCH v2 1/1] x86/boot/compressed: Fix avoiding memmap in physical KASLR Michal Clapinski
2025-10-23 8:24 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2025-10-23 18:30 ` Chris Li
2025-10-23 23:33 ` Michał Cłapiński
2025-10-23 20:29 ` Dave Hansen
2025-10-23 23:23 ` Michał Cłapiński
2025-10-24 18:21 ` Dave Hansen
2025-10-24 21:27 ` Michał Cłapiński
2025-11-06 14:59 ` Michał Cłapiński
2025-11-06 15:48 ` Dave Hansen
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®