linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] arm64/bpf: don't allocate BPF JIT programs in module memory

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 5 Dec 2018 16:40:50 +0100
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc:     Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "<netdev@...r.kernel.org>" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] arm64/bpf: don't allocate BPF JIT programs in
 module memory

On 12/05/2018 02:24 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 01:24:17PM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> On 12/04/2018 04:45 PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 at 13:49, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 08:20:06PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 at 19:26, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 11:18:04PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>>>>>>> index a6fdaea07c63..76c2ab40c02d 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>>>>>>> @@ -940,3 +940,16 @@ struct bpf_prog *bpf_int_jit_compile(struct bpf_prog *prog)
>>>>>>>                                          tmp : orig_prog);
>>>>>>>       return prog;
>>>>>>>  }
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +void *bpf_jit_alloc_exec(unsigned long size)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> +     return __vmalloc_node_range(size, PAGE_SIZE, BPF_JIT_REGION_START,
>>>>>>> +                                 BPF_JIT_REGION_END, GFP_KERNEL,
>>>>>>> +                                 PAGE_KERNEL_EXEC, 0, NUMA_NO_NODE,
>>>>>>> +                                 __builtin_return_address(0));
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess we'll want VM_IMMEDIATE_UNMAP here if Rich gets that merged.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think akpm already queued up that patch.
>>>>>
>>>>>> In the
>>>>>> meantime, I wonder if it's worth zeroing the region in bpf_jit_free_exec()?
>>>>>> (although we'd need the size information...).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not sure. What exactly would that achieve?
>>>>
>>>> I think the zero encoding is guaranteed to be undefined, so it would limit
>>>> the usefulness of any stale, executable TLB entries. However, we'd also need
>>>> cache maintenance to make that stuff visible to the I side, so it's probably
>>>> not worth it, especially if akpm has queued the stuff from Rich.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe just add an:
>>>>
>>>> /* FIXME: Remove this when VM_IMMEDIATE_UNMAP is supported */
>>>> #ifndef VM_IMMEDIATE_UNMAP
>>>> #define VM_IMMEDIATE_UNMAP      0
>>>> #endif
>>>>
>>>> so we remember to come back and sort this out? Up to you.
>>>
>>> I'll just make a note to send out that patch once the definition lands via -akpm
>>
>> Could I get an ACK from you for this patch, then I'd take the series into bpf-next.
> 
> Gah, thanks for the ping: I thought I acked this initially, but turns out I
> didn't.
> 
> Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>

Applied, thanks everyone!