Re: [PATCH] riscv: Ensure BPF_JIT_REGION_START aligned with PMD size

From: Jisheng Zhang
Date: Thu Jun 17 2021 - 13:33:37 EST

Next message: Daniel Vetter: "Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Remove duplicate include of intel_region_lmem.h"
Previous message: Richard Cochran: "Re: [net-next, v3, 01/10] ptp: add ptp virtual clock driver framework"
In reply to: Alex Ghiti: "Re: [PATCH] riscv: Ensure BPF_JIT_REGION_START aligned with PMD size"
Next in thread: Jisheng Zhang: "Re: [PATCH] riscv: Ensure BPF_JIT_REGION_START aligned with PMD size"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 16:18:54 +0200
Alex Ghiti <alex@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Le 17/06/2021 à 10:09, Alex Ghiti a écrit :
> > Le 17/06/2021 à 09:30, Palmer Dabbelt a écrit :
> >> On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 17:03:28 PDT (-0700), jszhang3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 20:54:19 +0200
> >>> Alex Ghiti <alex@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Jisheng,
> >>>
> >>> Hi Alex,
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Le 14/06/2021 à 18:49, Jisheng Zhang a écrit :
> >>>> > From: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> > > Andreas reported commit fc8504765ec5 ("riscv: bpf: Avoid
> >>>> breaking W^X")
> >>>> > breaks booting with one kind of config file, I reproduced a kernel
> >>>> panic
> >>>> > with the config:
> >>>> > > [    0.138553] Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual
> >>>> address ffffffff81201220
> >>>> > [    0.139159] Oops [#1]
> >>>> > [    0.139303] Modules linked in:
> >>>> > [    0.139601] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted
> >>>> 5.13.0-rc5-default+ #1
> >>>> > [    0.139934] Hardware name: riscv-virtio,qemu (DT)
> >>>> > [    0.140193] epc : __memset+0xc4/0xfc
> >>>> > [    0.140416] ra : skb_flow_dissector_init+0x1e/0x82
> >>>> > [    0.140609] epc : ffffffff8029806c ra : ffffffff8033be78 sp :
> >>>> ffffffe001647da0
> >>>> > [    0.140878] gp : ffffffff81134b08 tp : ffffffe001654380 t0 :
> >>>> ffffffff81201158
> >>>> > [    0.141156] t1 : 0000000000000002 t2 : 0000000000000154 s0 :
> >>>> ffffffe001647dd0
> >>>> > [    0.141424] s1 : ffffffff80a43250 a0 : ffffffff81201220 a1 :
> >>>> 0000000000000000
> >>>> > [    0.141654] a2 : 000000000000003c a3 : ffffffff81201258 a4 :
> >>>> 0000000000000064
> >>>> > [    0.141893] a5 : ffffffff8029806c a6 : 0000000000000040 a7 :
> >>>> ffffffffffffffff
> >>>> > [    0.142126] s2 : ffffffff81201220 s3 : 0000000000000009 s4 :
> >>>> ffffffff81135088
> >>>> > [    0.142353] s5 : ffffffff81135038 s6 : ffffffff8080ce80 s7 :
> >>>> ffffffff80800438
> >>>> > [    0.142584] s8 : ffffffff80bc6578 s9 : 0000000000000008 s10:
> >>>> ffffffff806000ac
> >>>> > [    0.142810] s11: 0000000000000000 t3 : fffffffffffffffc t4 :
> >>>> 0000000000000000
> >>>> > [    0.143042] t5 : 0000000000000155 t6 : 00000000000003ff
> >>>> > [    0.143220] status: 0000000000000120 badaddr: ffffffff81201220
> >>>> cause: 000000000000000f
> >>>> > [    0.143560] [<ffffffff8029806c>] __memset+0xc4/0xfc
> >>>> > [    0.143859] [<ffffffff8061e984>]
> >>>> init_default_flow_dissectors+0x22/0x60
> >>>> > [    0.144092] [<ffffffff800010fc>] do_one_initcall+0x3e/0x168
> >>>> > [    0.144278] [<ffffffff80600df0>] kernel_init_freeable+0x1c8/0x224
> >>>> > [    0.144479] [<ffffffff804868a8>] kernel_init+0x12/0x110
> >>>> > [    0.144658] [<ffffffff800022de>] ret_from_exception+0x0/0xc
> >>>> > [    0.145124] ---[ end trace f1e9643daa46d591 ]---
> >>>> > > After some investigation, I think I found the root cause: commit
> >>>> > 2bfc6cd81bd ("move kernel mapping outside of linear mapping") moves
> >>>> > BPF JIT region after the kernel:
> >>>> > > The &_end is unlikely aligned with PMD size, so the front bpf jit
> >>>> > region sits with part of kernel .data section in one PMD size
> >>>> mapping.
> >>>> > But kernel is mapped in PMD SIZE, when bpf_jit_binary_lock_ro() is
> >>>> > called to make the first bpf jit prog ROX, we will make part of
> >>>> kernel
> >>>> > .data section RO too, so when we write to, for example memset the
> >>>> > .data section, MMU will trigger a store page fault.
> >>>> Good catch, we make sure no physical allocation happens between _end
> >>>> and the next PMD aligned address, but I missed this one.
> >>>>
> >>>> > > To fix the issue, we need to ensure the BPF JIT region is PMD size
> >>>> > aligned. This patch acchieve this goal by restoring the BPF JIT
> >>>> region
> >>>> > to original position, I.E the 128MB before kernel .text section.
> >>>> But I disagree with your solution: I made sure modules and BPF
> >>>> programs get their own virtual regions to avoid worst case scenario
> >>>> where one could allocate all the space and leave nothing to the
> >>>> other (we are limited to +- 2GB offset). Why don't just align
> >>>> BPF_JIT_REGION_START to the next PMD aligned address?
> >>>
> >>> Originally, I planed to fix the issue by aligning
> >>> BPF_JIT_REGION_START, but
> >>> IIRC, BPF experts are adding (or have added) "Calling kernel
> >>> functions from BPF"
> >>> feature, there's a risk that BPF JIT region is beyond the 2GB of
> >>> module region:
> >>>
> >>> ------
> >>> module
> >>> ------
> >>> kernel
> >>> ------
> >>> BPF_JIT
> >>>
> >>> So I made this patch finally. In this patch, we let BPF JIT region sit
> >>> between module and kernel.
> >>>
> >>> To address "make sure modules and BPF programs get their own virtual
> >>> regions",
> >>> what about something as below (applied against this patch)?
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/pgtable.h
> >>> b/arch/riscv/include/asm/pgtable.h
> >>> index 380cd3a7e548..da1158f10b09 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/pgtable.h
> >>> +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/pgtable.h
> >>> @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@
> >>> #define BPF_JIT_REGION_SIZE    (SZ_128M)
> >>> #ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
> >>> #define BPF_JIT_REGION_START    (BPF_JIT_REGION_END -
> >>> BPF_JIT_REGION_SIZE)
> >>> -#define BPF_JIT_REGION_END    (MODULES_END)
> >>> +#define BPF_JIT_REGION_END    (PFN_ALIGN((unsigned long)&_start))
> >>> #else
> >>> #define BPF_JIT_REGION_START    (PAGE_OFFSET - BPF_JIT_REGION_SIZE)
> >>> #define BPF_JIT_REGION_END    (VMALLOC_END)
> >>> @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@
> >>> /* Modules always live before the kernel */
> >>> #ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
> >>> #define MODULES_VADDR    (PFN_ALIGN((unsigned long)&_end) - SZ_2G)
> >>> -#define MODULES_END    (PFN_ALIGN((unsigned long)&_start))
> >>> +#define MODULES_END    (BPF_JIT_REGION_END)
> >>> #endif
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Again, good catch, thanks,
> >>>>
> >>>> Alex
> >>>>
> >>>> > > Reported-by: Andreas Schwab <schwab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> > Signed-off-by: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> > ---
> >>>> >   arch/riscv/include/asm/pgtable.h | 5 ++---
> >>>> >   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>>> > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/pgtable.h
> >>>> b/arch/riscv/include/asm/pgtable.h
> >>>> > index 9469f464e71a..380cd3a7e548 100644
> >>>> > --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/pgtable.h
> >>>> > +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/pgtable.h
> >>>> > @@ -30,9 +30,8 @@
> >>>> > >   #define BPF_JIT_REGION_SIZE    (SZ_128M)
> >>>> >   #ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
> >>>> > -/* KASLR should leave at least 128MB for BPF after the kernel */
> >>>> > -#define BPF_JIT_REGION_START    PFN_ALIGN((unsigned long)&_end)
> >>>> > -#define BPF_JIT_REGION_END    (BPF_JIT_REGION_START +
> >>>> BPF_JIT_REGION_SIZE)
> >>>> > +#define BPF_JIT_REGION_START    (BPF_JIT_REGION_END -
> >>>> BPF_JIT_REGION_SIZE)
> >>>> > +#define BPF_JIT_REGION_END    (MODULES_END)
> >>>> >   #else
> >>>> >   #define BPF_JIT_REGION_START    (PAGE_OFFSET - BPF_JIT_REGION_SIZE)
> >>>> >   #define BPF_JIT_REGION_END    (VMALLOC_END)
> >>>> >
> >>
> >> This, when applied onto fixes, is breaking early boot on KASAN
> >> configurations for me.

I can reproduce this issue.

> >
> > Not surprising, I took a shortcut when initializing KASAN for modules,
> > kernel and BPF:
> >
> >         kasan_populate(kasan_mem_to_shadow((const void *)MODULES_VADDR),
> >                        kasan_mem_to_shadow((const void
> > *)BPF_JIT_REGION_END));
> >
> > The kernel is then not covered, I'm taking a look at how to fix that
> > properly.
> >
>
> The following based on "riscv: Introduce structure that group all
> variables regarding kernel mapping" fixes the issue:
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/mm/kasan_init.c b/arch/riscv/mm/kasan_init.c
> index 9daacae93e33..2a45ea909e7f 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/mm/kasan_init.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/mm/kasan_init.c
> @@ -199,9 +199,12 @@ void __init kasan_init(void)
> kasan_populate(kasan_mem_to_shadow(start),
> kasan_mem_to_shadow(end));
> }
>
> - /* Populate kernel, BPF, modules mapping */
> + /* Populate BPF and modules mapping: modules mapping encompasses
> BPF mapping */
> kasan_populate(kasan_mem_to_shadow((const void *)MODULES_VADDR),
> - kasan_mem_to_shadow((const void
> *)BPF_JIT_REGION_END));
> + kasan_mem_to_shadow((const void *)MODULES_END));
> + /* Populate kernel mapping */
> + kasan_populate(kasan_mem_to_shadow((const void
> *)kernel_map.virt_addr),
> + kasan_mem_to_shadow((const void
> *)kernel_map.virt_addr + kernel_map.size));
>
If this patch works, maybe we can still use one kasan_populate() to cover
kernel, bpf, and module:

kasan_populate(kasan_mem_to_shadow((const void *)MODULES_VADDR),
- kasan_mem_to_shadow((const void *)BPF_JIT_REGION_END));
+ kasan_mem_to_shadow((const void *)MODULES_VADDR + SZ_2G));

However, both can't solve the early boot hang issue. I'm not sure what's missing.

I applied your patch on rc6 + solution below "replace kernel_map.virt_addr with kernel_virt_addr and
kernel_map.size with load_sz"

Thanks

>
> Without the mentioned patch, replace kernel_map.virt_addr with
> kernel_virt_addr and kernel_map.size with load_sz. Note that load_sz was
> re-exposed in v6 of the patchset "Map the kernel with correct
> permissions the first time".
>

Next message: Daniel Vetter: "Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Remove duplicate include of intel_region_lmem.h"
Previous message: Richard Cochran: "Re: [net-next, v3, 01/10] ptp: add ptp virtual clock driver framework"
In reply to: Alex Ghiti: "Re: [PATCH] riscv: Ensure BPF_JIT_REGION_START aligned with PMD size"
Next in thread: Jisheng Zhang: "Re: [PATCH] riscv: Ensure BPF_JIT_REGION_START aligned with PMD size"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]