Re: [PATCH] Arm: mm: ftrace: Only set text back to ro after kernel has been marked ro

[Steven Rostedt]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 16:47:14 +0200
Matthias Reichl <hias@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 12:14:46PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> > <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:  
> > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 11:35:59AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:  
> > >> We don't _need_ to, but they're all contiguous, so the ro_perms array
> > >> used by set_kernel_text_*() is actually only a single entry:
> > >>
> > >> static struct section_perm ro_perms[] = {
> > >>         /* Make kernel code and rodata RX (set RO). */
> > >>         {
> > >>                 .name   = "text/rodata RO",
> > >>                 .start  = (unsigned long)_stext,
> > >>                 .end    = (unsigned long)__init_begin,
> > >> ...  
> > >
> > > Well, they may not be contiguous - it depends on DEBUG_ALIGN_RODATA.  
> > 
> > Maybe I'm picking a slightly wrong word. I guess I meant adjacent. The
> > range _stext to __init_begin is all read-only, though there may be
> > padding (controlled by DEBUG_ALIGN_RODATA), to allow a split for NX
> > markings on rodata.
> >   
> > > Either way, we have __start_rodata_section_aligned, which is either
> > > the start of the read-only data section, or the start of the first
> > > section beyond __start_rodata if DEBUG_ALIGN_RODATA is not set.
> > >
> > > Given that __start_rodata_section_aligned will always be less than
> > > __init_begin, is there any reason not to make the above end at
> > > __start_rodata_section_aligned, thereby allowing more of the read-only
> > > data (in the case of DEBUG_ALIGN_RODATA=n) or all of the read-only
> > > data (in the case of DEBUG_ALIGN_RODATA=y) to remain write-protected?  
> > 
> > Sure, there's no reason not to split this into two entries. It'll
> > require some reworking of the function calls to get it right,
> > obviously.  
> 
> Gentle ping, arm is still oopsing when the function tracer is
> enabled at boot time.
> 

I take it that my patch never got applied:

 http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180621124710.453ee0ae@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

-- Steve


> Tested on bcm2835 (RPiB+) with current mainline tree
> (githash 90368a37fbbe) and bcm2835_defconfig.
> 
> arm64 seems to be fine, tested on bcm2837 (RPi3) with same tree and
> arm64 defconfig plus function tracer enabled.