From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com (Edgecombe, Rick P) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 22:01:45 +0000 Subject: [PATCH v2 4/7] arm64/modules: Add rlimit checking for arm64 modules In-Reply-To: <20181012143254.idy65qbvaaw5k3ge@linux-8ccs> References: <20181011233117.7883-1-rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com> <20181011233117.7883-5-rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com> <25951d99-8ba7-5c9e-938e-baf92395f9e0@intel.com> <20181012143254.idy65qbvaaw5k3ge@linux-8ccs> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, 2018-10-12 at 16:32 +0200, Jessica Yu wrote: > +++ Dave Hansen [11/10/18 16:47 -0700]: > > On 10/11/2018 04:31 PM, Rick Edgecombe wrote: > > > + if (check_inc_mod_rlimit(size)) > > > + return NULL; > > > + > > > p = __vmalloc_node_range(size, MODULE_ALIGN, module_alloc_base, > > > module_alloc_base + MODULES_VSIZE, > > > gfp_mask, PAGE_KERNEL_EXEC, 0, > > > @@ -65,6 +68,8 @@ void *module_alloc(unsigned long size) > > > return NULL; > > > } > > > > > > + update_mod_rlimit(p, size); > > > > Is there a reason we couldn't just rename all of the existing per-arch > > module_alloc() calls to be called, say, "arch_module_alloc()", then put > > this new rlimit code in a generic helper that does: > > > > > > if (check_inc_mod_rlimit(size)) > > return NULL; > > > > p = arch_module_alloc(...); > > > > ... > > > > update_mod_rlimit(p, size); > > > > I second this suggestion. Just make module_{alloc,memfree} generic, > non-weak functions that call the rlimit helpers in addition to the > arch-specific arch_module_{alloc,memfree} functions. > > Jessica Ok, thanks. I am going to try another version of this with just a system wide BPF JIT limit based on the problems Jann brought up. I think it would be nice to have a module space limit, but as far as I know the only way today un-privlidged users could fill the space is from BPF JIT. Unless you see another purpose long term? Rick