lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2024]   [Apr]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 05/15] mm: introduce execmem_alloc() and execmem_free()
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 10:03 AM Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org> wrote:
[...]
> > >
> > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240411160526.2093408-1-rppt@kernel.org
> >
> > For the ROX to work, we need different users (module text, kprobe, etc.) to have
> > the same execmem_range. From [1]:
> >
> > static void *execmem_cache_alloc(struct execmem_range *range, size_t size)
> > {
> > ...
> > p = __execmem_cache_alloc(size);
> > if (p)
> > return p;
> > err = execmem_cache_populate(range, size);
> > ...
> > }
> >
> > We are calling __execmem_cache_alloc() without range. For this to work,
> > we can only call execmem_cache_alloc() with one execmem_range.
>
> Actually, on x86 this will "just work" because everything shares the same
> address space :)
>
> The 2M pages in the cache will be in the modules space, so
> __execmem_cache_alloc() will always return memory from that address space.
>
> For other architectures this indeed needs to be fixed with passing the
> range to __execmem_cache_alloc() and limiting search in the cache for that
> range.

I think we at least need the "map to" concept (initially proposed by Thomas)
to get this work. For example, EXECMEM_BPF and EXECMEM_KPROBE
maps to EXECMEM_MODULE_TEXT, so that all these actually share
the same range.

Does this make sense?

Song

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2024-05-27 16:47    [W:0.078 / U:0.736 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site