[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9d7f77959e1be0a9a3ff511a8fc45518068c85a6.camel@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 19:48:07 +0000
From: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
To: "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org" <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"daniel@...earbox.net" <daniel@...earbox.net>,
"keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
"jeyu@...nel.org" <jeyu@...nel.org>,
"jannh@...gle.com" <jannh@...gle.com>,
"ast@...nel.org" <ast@...nel.org>,
"mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
"catalin.marinas@....com" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
"will.deacon@....com" <will.deacon@....com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"eric.dumazet@...il.com" <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] bpf: permit JIT allocations to be served outside
the module region
On Wed, 2018-11-21 at 14:17 +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On arm64, modules are allocated from a 128 MB window which is close to
> the core kernel, so that relative direct branches are guaranteed to be
> in range (except in some KASLR configurations). Also, module_alloc()
> is in charge of allocating KASAN shadow memory when running with KASAN
> enabled.
>
> This means that the way BPF reuses module_alloc()/module_memfree() is
> undesirable on arm64 (and potentially other architectures as well),
> and so this series refactors BPF's use of those functions to permit
> architectures to change this behavior.
>
Hi Ard,
I am looking at adding optional BPF JIT in vmalloc functionality for x86 that
would use this refactor. In fact I have done the same thing with just different
names.
My implementation intends to use the module space until a usage limit is reached
and then overflow into vmalloc, so it would be an additional knob like
"bpf_jit_limit". Wondering if that should be a cross-arch concept that connects
to this. Does it fit in with what you are trying to do for arm64 here?
Thanks,
Rick
Powered by blists - more mailing lists