Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] arm64/bpf: don't allocate BPF JIT programs in module memory

[Daniel Borkmann]

On 12/05/2018 02:24 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 01:24:17PM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> On 12/04/2018 04:45 PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 at 13:49, Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 08:20:06PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 at 19:26, Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 11:18:04PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>>>>>>> index a6fdaea07c63..76c2ab40c02d 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>>>>>>> @@ -940,3 +940,16 @@ struct bpf_prog *bpf_int_jit_compile(struct bpf_prog *prog)
>>>>>>>                                          tmp : orig_prog);
>>>>>>>       return prog;
>>>>>>>  }
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +void *bpf_jit_alloc_exec(unsigned long size)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> +     return __vmalloc_node_range(size, PAGE_SIZE, BPF_JIT_REGION_START,
>>>>>>> +                                 BPF_JIT_REGION_END, GFP_KERNEL,
>>>>>>> +                                 PAGE_KERNEL_EXEC, 0, NUMA_NO_NODE,
>>>>>>> +                                 __builtin_return_address(0));
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess we'll want VM_IMMEDIATE_UNMAP here if Rich gets that merged.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think akpm already queued up that patch.
>>>>>
>>>>>> In the
>>>>>> meantime, I wonder if it's worth zeroing the region in bpf_jit_free_exec()?
>>>>>> (although we'd need the size information...).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not sure. What exactly would that achieve?
>>>>
>>>> I think the zero encoding is guaranteed to be undefined, so it would limit
>>>> the usefulness of any stale, executable TLB entries. However, we'd also need
>>>> cache maintenance to make that stuff visible to the I side, so it's probably
>>>> not worth it, especially if akpm has queued the stuff from Rich.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe just add an:
>>>>
>>>> /* FIXME: Remove this when VM_IMMEDIATE_UNMAP is supported */
>>>> #ifndef VM_IMMEDIATE_UNMAP
>>>> #define VM_IMMEDIATE_UNMAP      0
>>>> #endif
>>>>
>>>> so we remember to come back and sort this out? Up to you.
>>>
>>> I'll just make a note to send out that patch once the definition lands via -akpm
>>
>> Could I get an ACK from you for this patch, then I'd take the series into bpf-next.
> 
> Gah, thanks for the ping: I thought I acked this initially, but turns out I
> didn't.
> 
> Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx>

Applied, thanks everyone!