netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 05/15] mm: introduce execmem_alloc() and execmem

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAPhsuW5RYfq8FOtMkO69cdQ3Bc1p2kQPWE2crts1UMhqJr+7sQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 11:32:02 -0700
From: Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, 
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@...osinc.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	Bjorn Topel <bjorn@...nel.org>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, 
	Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, 
	Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@...nel.org>, Donald Dutile <ddutile@...hat.com>, 
	Eric Chanudet <echanude@...hat.com>, Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>, Helge Deller <deller@....de>, 
	Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>, Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>, 
	Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, 
	Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>, 
	Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@...il.com>, Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>, 
	Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, 
	Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, 
	Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-modules@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, 
	linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, loongarch@...ts.linux.dev, 
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 05/15] mm: introduce execmem_alloc() and execmem_free()

Hi Masami and Mike,

On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 2:11 AM Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
[...]
> > >
> > > IIUC, we need to update __execmem_cache_alloc() to take a range pointer as
> > > input. module text will use "range" for EXECMEM_MODULE_TEXT, while kprobe
> > > will use "range" for EXECMEM_KPROBE. Without "map to" concept or sharing
> > > the "range" object, we will have to compare different range parameters to check
> > > we can share cached pages between module text and kprobe, which is not
> > > efficient. Did I miss something?
>
> Song, thanks for trying to eplain. I think I need to explain why I used
> module_alloc() originally.
>
> This depends on how kprobe features are implemented on the architecture, and
> how much features are supported on kprobes.
>
> Because kprobe jump optimization and kprobe jump-back optimization need to
> use a jump instruction to jump into the trampoline and jump back from the
> trampoline directly, if the architecuture jmp instruction supports +-2GB range
> like x86, it needs to allocate the trampoline buffer inside such address space.
> This requirement is similar to the modules (because module function needs to
> call other functions in the kernel etc.), at least kprobes on x86 used
> module_alloc().
>
> However, if an architecture only supports breakpoint/trap based kprobe,
> it does not need to consider whether the execmem is allocated.
>
> >
> > We can always share large ROX pages as long as they are within the correct
> > address space. The permissions for them are ROX and the alignment
> > differences are due to KASAN and this is handled during allocation of the
> > large page to refill the cache. __execmem_cache_alloc() only needs to limit
> > the search for the address space of the range.
>
> So I don't think EXECMEM_KPROBE always same as EXECMEM_MODULE_TEXT, it
> should be configured for each arch. Especially, if it is only used for
> searching parameter, it looks OK to me.

Thanks for the explanation!

I was thinking "we can have EXECMEM_KPROBE share the same parameters as
EXECMEM_MODULE_TEXT for all architectures". But this thought is built on top
of assumptions on future changes/improvements within multiple sub systems.
At this moment, I have no objections moving forward with current execmem APIs.

Thanks,
Song