Re: [PATCH v5 5/6] kprobes: Use text_alloc() and text_free()]

[Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>]

On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 03:16:08PM +0300, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 12:27, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > * Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Use text_alloc() and text_free() instead of module_alloc() and
> > > module_memfree() when an arch provides them.
> > >
> > > Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
> > > Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
> > > Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
> > > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >  kernel/kprobes.c | 9 +++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/kprobes.c b/kernel/kprobes.c
> > > index 4e46d96d4e16..611fcda9f6bf 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/kprobes.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/kprobes.c
> > > @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@
> > >  #include <asm/cacheflush.h>
> > >  #include <asm/errno.h>
> > >  #include <linux/uaccess.h>
> > > +#include <linux/vmalloc.h>
> > >
> > >  #define KPROBE_HASH_BITS 6
> > >  #define KPROBE_TABLE_SIZE (1 << KPROBE_HASH_BITS)
> > > @@ -111,12 +112,20 @@ enum kprobe_slot_state {
> > >
> > >  void __weak *alloc_insn_page(void)
> > >  {
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_TEXT_ALLOC
> > > +     return text_alloc(PAGE_SIZE);
> > > +#else
> > >       return module_alloc(PAGE_SIZE);
> > > +#endif
> > >  }
> > >
> > >  void __weak free_insn_page(void *page)
> > >  {
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_TEXT_ALLOC
> > > +     text_free(page);
> > > +#else
> > >       module_memfree(page);
> > > +#endif
> > >  }
> >
> > I've read the observations in the other threads, but this #ifdef
> > jungle is silly, it's a de-facto open coded text_alloc() with a
> > module_alloc() fallback...
> >
> 
> Also, as I attempted to explain before, there is no reason to allocate
> kasan shadow for any of these use cases, so cloning module_alloc() to
> implement text_alloc() is not the correct approach even on x86.
> 
> I suppose module_alloc() could be reimplemented in terms of
> text_alloc() in this case, but simply relabelling it like this seems
> inappropriate on all architectures.

I agree with this. Even if there was chance to do a merge of some
kind, it should probably happen over time and accept some redundancy
first.

/Jarkko