Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] kfence: Allow re-enabling KFENCE after system startup

From: Tianchen Ding
Date: Sat Mar 05 2022 - 01:06:33 EST


On 2022/3/5 13:26, Tianchen Ding wrote:
On 2022/3/5 02:13, Marco Elver wrote:
On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 at 04:15, Tianchen Ding <dtcccc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

If once KFENCE is disabled by:
echo 0 > /sys/module/kfence/parameters/sample_interval
KFENCE could never be re-enabled until next rebooting.

Allow re-enabling it by writing a positive num to sample_interval.

Signed-off-by: Tianchen Ding <dtcccc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

The only problem I see with this is if KFENCE was disabled because of
a KFENCE_WARN_ON(). See below.

---
  mm/kfence/core.c | 16 ++++++++++++++--
  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/kfence/core.c b/mm/kfence/core.c
index 13128fa13062..19eb123c0bba 100644
--- a/mm/kfence/core.c
+++ b/mm/kfence/core.c
@@ -55,6 +55,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kfence_sample_interval); /* Export for test modules. */
  #endif
  #define MODULE_PARAM_PREFIX "kfence."

+static int kfence_enable_late(void);
  static int param_set_sample_interval(const char *val, const struct kernel_param *kp)
  {
         unsigned long num;
@@ -65,10 +66,11 @@ static int param_set_sample_interval(const char *val, const struct kernel_param

         if (!num) /* Using 0 to indicate KFENCE is disabled. */
                 WRITE_ONCE(kfence_enabled, false);
-       else if (!READ_ONCE(kfence_enabled) && system_state != SYSTEM_BOOTING)
-               return -EINVAL; /* Cannot (re-)enable KFENCE on-the-fly. */

         *((unsigned long *)kp->arg) = num;
+
+       if (num && !READ_ONCE(kfence_enabled) && system_state != SYSTEM_BOOTING)

Should probably have an 'old_sample_interval = *((unsigned long
*)kp->arg)' somewhere before, and add a '&& !old_sample_interval',
because if old_sample_interval!=0 then KFENCE was disabled due to a
KFENCE_WARN_ON(). Also in this case, it should return -EINVAL. So you
want a flow like this:

old_sample_interval = ...;
...
if (num && !READ_ONCE(kfence_enabled) && system_state != SYSTEM_BOOTING)
   return old_sample_interval ? -EINVAL : kfence_enable_late();
...


Because sample_interval will used by delayed_work, we must put setting sample_interval before enabling KFENCE.
So the order would be:

old_sample_interval = sample_interval;
sample_interval = num;
if (...) kfence_enable_late();

This may be bypassed after KFENCE_WARN_ON() happens, if we first write 0, and then write 100 to it.

How about this one:

    if (ret < 0)
        return ret;

+    /* Cannot set sample_interval after KFENCE_WARN_ON(). */
+    if (unlikely(*((unsigned long *)kp->arg) && !READ_ONCE(kfence_enabled)))
+        return -EINVAL;
+
    if (!num) /* Using 0 to indicate KFENCE is disabled. */
        WRITE_ONCE(kfence_enabled, false);


Hmm...
I found KFENCE_WARN_ON() may be called when sample_interval==0. (e.g., kfence_guarded_free())
So it's better to add a bool.

diff --git a/mm/kfence/core.c b/mm/kfence/core.c
index ae69b2a113a4..c729be0207e8 100644
--- a/mm/kfence/core.c
+++ b/mm/kfence/core.c
@@ -38,14 +38,17 @@
#define KFENCE_WARN_ON(cond) \
({ \
const bool __cond = WARN_ON(cond); \
- if (unlikely(__cond)) \
+ if (unlikely(__cond)) { \
WRITE_ONCE(kfence_enabled, false); \
+ disabled_by_warn = true; \
+ } \
__cond; \
})

/* === Data ================================================================= */

static bool kfence_enabled __read_mostly;
+static bool disabled_by_warn __read_mostly;

unsigned long kfence_sample_interval __read_mostly = CONFIG_KFENCE_SAMPLE_INTERVAL;
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kfence_sample_interval); /* Export for test modules. */
@@ -70,7 +73,7 @@ static int param_set_sample_interval(const char *val, const struct kernel_param
*((unsigned long *)kp->arg) = num;

if (num && !READ_ONCE(kfence_enabled) && system_state != SYSTEM_BOOTING)
- return kfence_enable_late();
+ return disabled_by_warn ? -EINVAL : kfence_enable_late();
return 0;
}