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

Mike Rapoport
2024-04-18T15:37:06Z

On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 04:32:49PM -0700, Song Liu wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 12:23 AM Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 06:36:39PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 09:52:41AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 07:00:41PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > > > > +/**
> > > > > + * enum execmem_type - types of executable memory ranges
> > > > > + *
> > > > > + * There are several subsystems that allocate executable memory.
> > > > > + * Architectures define different restrictions on placement,
> > > > > + * permissions, alignment and other parameters for memory that can be used
> > > > > + * by these subsystems.
> > > > > + * Types in this enum identify subsystems that allocate executable memory
> > > > > + * and let architectures define parameters for ranges suitable for
> > > > > + * allocations by each subsystem.
> > > > > + *
> > > > > + * @EXECMEM_DEFAULT: default parameters that would be used for types that
> > > > > + * are not explcitly defined.
> > > > > + * @EXECMEM_MODULE_TEXT: parameters for module text sections
> > > > > + * @EXECMEM_KPROBES: parameters for kprobes
> > > > > + * @EXECMEM_FTRACE: parameters for ftrace
> > > > > + * @EXECMEM_BPF: parameters for BPF
> > > > > + * @EXECMEM_TYPE_MAX:
> > > > > + */
> > > > > +enum execmem_type {
> > > > > + EXECMEM_DEFAULT,
> > > > > + EXECMEM_MODULE_TEXT = EXECMEM_DEFAULT,
> > > > > + EXECMEM_KPROBES,
> > > > > + EXECMEM_FTRACE,
> > > > > + EXECMEM_BPF,
> > > > > + EXECMEM_TYPE_MAX,
> > > > > +};
> > > >
> > > > Can we please get a break-down of how all these types are actually
> > > > different from one another?
> > > >
> > > > I'm thinking some platforms have a tiny immediate space (arm64 comes to
> > > > mind) and has less strict placement constraints for some of them?
> > >
> > > Yeah, and really I'd *much* rather deal with that in arch code, as I have said
> > > several times.
> > >
> > > For arm64 we have two bsaic restrictions:
> > >
> > > 1) Direct branches can go +/-128M
> > > We can expand this range by having direct branches go to PLTs, at a
> > > performance cost.
> > >
> > > 2) PREL32 relocations can go +/-2G
> > > We cannot expand this further.
> > >
> > > * We don't need to allocate memory for ftrace. We do not use trampolines.
> > >
> > > * Kprobes XOL areas don't care about either of those; we don't place any
> > > PC-relative instructions in those. Maybe we want to in future.
> > >
> > > * Modules care about both; we'd *prefer* to place them within +/-128M of all
> > > other kernel/module code, but if there's no space we can use PLTs and expand
> > > that to +/-2G. Since modules can refreence other modules, that ends up
> > > actually being halved, and modules have to fit within some 2G window that
> > > also covers the kernel.
>
> Is +/- 2G enough for all realistic use cases? If so, I guess we don't
> really need
> EXECMEM_ANYWHERE below?
>
> > >
> > > * I'm not sure about BPF's requirements; it seems happy doing the same as
> > > modules.
> >
> > BPF are happy with vmalloc().
> >
> > > So if we *must* use a common execmem allocator, what we'd reall want is our own
> > > types, e.g.
> > >
> > > EXECMEM_ANYWHERE
> > > EXECMEM_NOPLT
> > > EXECMEM_PREL32
> > >
> > > ... and then we use those in arch code to implement module_alloc() and friends.
> >
> > I'm looking at execmem_types more as definition of the consumers, maybe I
> > should have named the enum execmem_consumer at the first place.
>
> I think looking at execmem_type from consumers' point of view adds
> unnecessary complexity. IIUC, for most (if not all) archs, ftrace, kprobe,
> and bpf (and maybe also module text) all have the same requirements.
> Did I miss something?

It's enough to have one architecture with different constrains for kprobes
and bpf to warrant a type for each.

Where do you see unnecessary complexity?

> IOW, we have
>
> enum execmem_type {
> EXECMEM_DEFAULT,
> EXECMEM_TEXT,
> EXECMEM_KPROBES = EXECMEM_TEXT,
> EXECMEM_FTRACE = EXECMEM_TEXT,
> EXECMEM_BPF = EXECMEM_TEXT, /* we may end up without
> _KPROBE, _FTRACE, _BPF */
> EXECMEM_DATA, /* rw */
> EXECMEM_RO_DATA,
> EXECMEM_RO_AFTER_INIT,
> EXECMEM_TYPE_MAX,
> };
>
> Does this make sense?

How do you suggest to deal with e.g. riscv that has separate address spaces
for modules, kprobes and bpf?

> Thanks,
> Song

--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.