On 18.08.20 16:15, Mike Rapoport wrote:
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt(a)linux.ibm.com>
This is an implementation of "secret" mappings backed by a file descriptor.
* rebase on v5.9-rc1
* Do not redefine PMD_PAGE_ORDER in fs/dax.c, thanks Kirill
* Make secret mappings exclusive by default and only require flags to
memfd_secret() system call for uncached mappings, thanks again Kirill :)
* Squash kernel-parameters.txt update into the commit that added the
command line option.
* Make uncached mode explicitly selectable by architectures. For now enable
it only on x86.
* Follow Michael's suggestion and name the new system call 'memfd_secret'
* Add kernel-parameters documentation about the boot option
* Fix i386-tinyconfig regression reported by the kbuild bot.
CONFIG_SECRETMEM now depends on !EMBEDDED to disable it on small systems
from one side and still make it available unconditionally on
architectures that support SET_DIRECT_MAP.
The file descriptor backing secret memory mappings is created using a
dedicated memfd_secret system call The desired protection mode for the
memory is configured using flags parameter of the system call. The mmap()
of the file descriptor created with memfd_secret() will create a "secret"
memory mapping. The pages in that mapping will be marked as not present in
the direct map and will have desired protection bits set in the user page
table. For instance, current implementation allows uncached mappings.
Although normally Linux userspace mappings are protected from other users,
such secret mappings are useful for environments where a hostile tenant is
trying to trick the kernel into giving them access to other tenants
Additionally, the secret mappings may be used as a mean to protect guest
memory in a virtual machine host.
Just a general question. I assume such pages (where the direct mapping
was changed) cannot get migrated - I can spot a simple alloc_page(). So
essentially a process can just allocate a whole bunch of memory that is
unmovable, correct? Is there any limit? Is it properly accounted towards
the process (memctl) ?
David / dhildenb