All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrey Ryabinin <a.ryabinin@samsung.com>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kasan, module, vmalloc: rework shadow allocation for modules
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 10:47:16 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <54E6E684.4070806@samsung.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87fva1sajo.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>

On 02/20/2015 03:15 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Andrey Ryabinin <a.ryabinin@samsung.com> writes:
>> On 02/19/2015 02:10 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
>>> This is not portable.  Other archs don't use vmalloc, or don't use
>>> (or define) MODULES_VADDR.  If you really want to hook here, you'd
>>> need a new flag (or maybe use PAGE_KERNEL_EXEC after an audit).
>>>
>>
>> Well, instead of explicit (addr >= MODULES_VADDR && addr < MODULES_END)
>> I could hide this into arch-specific function: 'kasan_need_to_allocate_shadow(const void *addr)'
>> or make make all those functions weak and allow arch code to redefine them.
> 
> That adds another layer of indirection.  And how would the caller of
> plain vmalloc() even know what to return?
> 

I think I don't understand what do you mean here. vmalloc() callers shouldn't know
anything about kasan/shadow.

You were concerned that this patch is not portable, so I suggested to hide arch specific
part in arch code. That's it.

>>> Thus I think modifying the callers is the better choice.
>>>
>>
>> I could suggest following (though, I still prefer 'modifying vmalloc' approach):
>>   * In do_init_module(), instead of call_rcu(&freeinit->rcu, do_free_init);
>>     use synchronyze_rcu() + module_memfree(). Of course this will be
>>   under CONFIG_KASAN.
> 
> But it would be slow, and a disparate code path, which is usually a bad
> idea.
> 
>>     As you said there other module_memfree() users, so what if they will decide
>>     to free memory in atomic context?
> 
> Hmm, how about a hybrid:
> 
> 1) Add kasan_module_alloc(p, size) after module alloc as your original.
> 2) Hook into vfree(), and ignore it if you can't find the map.
> 

That should work, but it looks messy IMO.

> Or is the latter too expensive?
> 

Not sure whether this will be too expensive or not,
but definitely more expensive than simple (addr >= MODULES_VADDR && addr < MODULES_END) check.


--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrey Ryabinin <a.ryabinin@samsung.com>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kasan, module, vmalloc: rework shadow allocation for modules
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 10:47:16 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <54E6E684.4070806@samsung.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87fva1sajo.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>

On 02/20/2015 03:15 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Andrey Ryabinin <a.ryabinin@samsung.com> writes:
>> On 02/19/2015 02:10 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
>>> This is not portable.  Other archs don't use vmalloc, or don't use
>>> (or define) MODULES_VADDR.  If you really want to hook here, you'd
>>> need a new flag (or maybe use PAGE_KERNEL_EXEC after an audit).
>>>
>>
>> Well, instead of explicit (addr >= MODULES_VADDR && addr < MODULES_END)
>> I could hide this into arch-specific function: 'kasan_need_to_allocate_shadow(const void *addr)'
>> or make make all those functions weak and allow arch code to redefine them.
> 
> That adds another layer of indirection.  And how would the caller of
> plain vmalloc() even know what to return?
> 

I think I don't understand what do you mean here. vmalloc() callers shouldn't know
anything about kasan/shadow.

You were concerned that this patch is not portable, so I suggested to hide arch specific
part in arch code. That's it.

>>> Thus I think modifying the callers is the better choice.
>>>
>>
>> I could suggest following (though, I still prefer 'modifying vmalloc' approach):
>>   * In do_init_module(), instead of call_rcu(&freeinit->rcu, do_free_init);
>>     use synchronyze_rcu() + module_memfree(). Of course this will be
>>   under CONFIG_KASAN.
> 
> But it would be slow, and a disparate code path, which is usually a bad
> idea.
> 
>>     As you said there other module_memfree() users, so what if they will decide
>>     to free memory in atomic context?
> 
> Hmm, how about a hybrid:
> 
> 1) Add kasan_module_alloc(p, size) after module alloc as your original.
> 2) Hook into vfree(), and ignore it if you can't find the map.
> 

That should work, but it looks messy IMO.

> Or is the latter too expensive?
> 

Not sure whether this will be too expensive or not,
but definitely more expensive than simple (addr >= MODULES_VADDR && addr < MODULES_END) check.



  reply	other threads:[~2015-02-20  7:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-02-18 17:44 [PATCH] kasan, module, vmalloc: rework shadow allocation for modules Andrey Ryabinin
2015-02-18 17:44 ` Andrey Ryabinin
2015-02-18 23:10 ` Rusty Russell
2015-02-18 23:10   ` Rusty Russell
2015-02-19 13:21   ` Andrey Ryabinin
2015-02-19 13:21     ` Andrey Ryabinin
2015-02-20  0:15     ` Rusty Russell
2015-02-20  0:15       ` Rusty Russell
2015-02-20  7:47       ` Andrey Ryabinin [this message]
2015-02-20  7:47         ` Andrey Ryabinin
2015-02-23  8:26         ` Rusty Russell
2015-02-23  8:26           ` Rusty Russell
2015-02-24 12:58           ` Andrey Ryabinin
2015-02-24 12:58             ` Andrey Ryabinin
2015-02-25  6:25             ` Rusty Russell
2015-02-25  6:25               ` Rusty Russell
2015-02-25  7:56               ` Andrey Ryabinin
2015-02-25  7:56                 ` Andrey Ryabinin
2015-02-26  1:30                 ` Rusty Russell
2015-02-26  1:30                   ` Rusty Russell
2015-02-27 12:20                   ` Andrey Ryabinin
2015-02-27 12:20                     ` Andrey Ryabinin

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=54E6E684.4070806@samsung.com \
    --to=a.ryabinin@samsung.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=dvyukov@google.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.