[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <B50E9A96-E7AD-4C33-8CDC-AAD058C32401@fb.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2021 00:11:49 +0000
From: Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"ast@...nel.org" <ast@...nel.org>,
"daniel@...earbox.net" <daniel@...earbox.net>,
"andrii@...nel.org" <andrii@...nel.org>,
Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/7] set_memory: introduce
set_memory_[ro|x]_noalias
> On Nov 17, 2021, at 3:57 PM, Song Liu <songliubraving@...com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Nov 17, 2021, at 2:01 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 09:36:27PM +0000, Song Liu wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Nov 16, 2021, at 12:00 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 11:13:42PM -0800, Song Liu wrote:
>>>>> These allow setting ro/x for module_alloc() mapping, while leave the
>>>>> linear mapping rw/nx.
>>>>
>>>> This needs a very strong rationale for *why*. How does this not
>>>> trivially circumvent W^X ?
>>>
>>> In this case, we want to have multiple BPF programs sharing the 2MB page.
>>> When the JIT engine is working on one program, we would rather existing
>>> BPF programs on the same page stay on RO+X mapping (the module_alloc()
>>> address). The solution in this version is to let the JIT engine write to
>>> the page via linear address.
>>>
>>> An alternative is to only use the module_alloc() address, and flip the
>>> read-only bit (of the whole 2MB page) back and forth. However, this
>>> requires some serialization among different JIT jobs.
>>
>> Neither options seem acceptible to me as they both violate W^X.
>>
>> Please have a close look at arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c:__text_poke()
>> for how we modify active text. I think that or something very similar is
>> the only option. By having an alias in a special (user) address space
>> that is not accessible by any other CPU, only the poking CPU can expoit
>> this (temporary) hole, which is a much larger ask than any of the
>> proposed options.
>
> I would agree that __text_poke() is a safer option. But in this case, we
> will need the temporary hole to be 2MB in size. Also, we will probably
> hold the temporary mapping for longer time (the whole JITing process).
> Does this sound reasonable?
Actually, the hole is probably not always 2MB in size. But it could be up
to 2MB in size.
Song
Powered by blists - more mailing lists