[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whosoBSLAWzSGUZ8s=UwAVG9rsQ9OVPvw97S2RRFGfk2A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2023 13:48:21 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>,
James Bottomley <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
David Kaplan <David.Kaplan@....com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: Linux 6.6-rc3 (DEBUG_VIRTUAL is unhappy on x86)
On Sun, 1 Oct 2023 at 07:17, Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Peter Zijlstra (1):
> > > x86,static_call: Fix static-call vs return-thunk
> >
> > Hello, the commit above caused a crash on x86 kernel with
> > CONFIG_DEBUG_VIRTUAL=y.
>
> OK, I looked into this a little bit, and it turns out that the problematic
> address here is from cleanup_trusted() in
> security/keys/trusted-keys/trusted_core.c.
> (and it's builtin due to CONFIG_TRUSTED_KEYS=y)
>
> The function is marked as __exit, so it does not fall within the
> 'core kernel text address range,' which is between _stext and _etext
> (or between _sinittext and _einittext). and thus __text_poke() thinks that
> it's vmalloc/module area.
>
> I think __text_poke() should be taught that functions marked as __exit
> also belong to kernel code just like __init.
I think your patch is fine (well, whitespace-damaged, but conceptually good).
But I also wonder about that
static_call_cond(trusted_key_exit)();
in cleanup_trusted(). It seems all kinds of pointless to use static
calls for something that is done *once*. That's not an optimization,
that's honestly just _stupid_. It costs more to do the rewriting that
it does to just do the one dynamic indirect call.
Side note: the same is true of the init-time call, which does
static_call_update(trusted_key_init,
trusted_key_sources[i].ops->init);
...
ret = static_call(trusted_key_init)();
which again is a *lot* more expensive than just doing the indirect
function call.
So while I don't think your patch is wrong, I do think that the cause
here is plain silly code, and that trusted key code simply should not
do the crazy thing it does (and that causes silly problems).
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists