Re: [PATCH v4 05/15] mm: introduce execmem_alloc() and execmem_free()

Song Liu
2024-04-22T18:32:50Z

Hi Masami and Mike,

On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 2:11 AM Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> wrote:
[...]
> > >
> > > IIUC, we need to update __execmem_cache_alloc() to take a range pointer as
> > > input. module text will use "range" for EXECMEM_MODULE_TEXT, while kprobe
> > > will use "range" for EXECMEM_KPROBE. Without "map to" concept or sharing
> > > the "range" object, we will have to compare different range parameters to check
> > > we can share cached pages between module text and kprobe, which is not
> > > efficient. Did I miss something?
>
> Song, thanks for trying to eplain. I think I need to explain why I used
> module_alloc() originally.
>
> This depends on how kprobe features are implemented on the architecture, and
> how much features are supported on kprobes.
>
> Because kprobe jump optimization and kprobe jump-back optimization need to
> use a jump instruction to jump into the trampoline and jump back from the
> trampoline directly, if the architecuture jmp instruction supports +-2GB range
> like x86, it needs to allocate the trampoline buffer inside such address space.
> This requirement is similar to the modules (because module function needs to
> call other functions in the kernel etc.), at least kprobes on x86 used
> module_alloc().
>
> However, if an architecture only supports breakpoint/trap based kprobe,
> it does not need to consider whether the execmem is allocated.
>
> >
> > We can always share large ROX pages as long as they are within the correct
> > address space. The permissions for them are ROX and the alignment
> > differences are due to KASAN and this is handled during allocation of the
> > large page to refill the cache. __execmem_cache_alloc() only needs to limit
> > the search for the address space of the range.
>
> So I don't think EXECMEM_KPROBE always same as EXECMEM_MODULE_TEXT, it
> should be configured for each arch. Especially, if it is only used for
> searching parameter, it looks OK to me.

Thanks for the explanation!

I was thinking "we can have EXECMEM_KPROBE share the same parameters as
EXECMEM_MODULE_TEXT for all architectures". But this thought is built on top
of assumptions on future changes/improvements within multiple sub systems.
At this moment, I have no objections moving forward with current execmem APIs.

Thanks,
Song