Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] arm64: kasan: don't populate vmalloc area for CONFIG_KASAN_VMALLOC

Will Deacon
2021-02-04T16:28:01Z

On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 10:46:12PM +0800, Lecopzer Chen wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 09, 2021 at 06:32:49PM +0800, Lecopzer Chen wrote:
> > > Linux support KAsan for VMALLOC since commit 3c5c3cfb9ef4da9
> > > ("kasan: support backing vmalloc space with real shadow memory")
> > >
> > > Like how the MODULES_VADDR does now, just not to early populate
> > > the VMALLOC_START between VMALLOC_END.
> > > similarly, the kernel code mapping is now in the VMALLOC area and
> > > should keep these area populated.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Lecopzer Chen <lecopzer.chen@mediatek.com>
> > > ---
> > > arch/arm64/mm/kasan_init.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++-----
> > > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/kasan_init.c b/arch/arm64/mm/kasan_init.c
> > > index d8e66c78440e..39b218a64279 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/kasan_init.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/kasan_init.c
> > > @@ -214,6 +214,7 @@ static void __init kasan_init_shadow(void)
> > > {
> > > u64 kimg_shadow_start, kimg_shadow_end;
> > > u64 mod_shadow_start, mod_shadow_end;
> > > + u64 vmalloc_shadow_start, vmalloc_shadow_end;
> > > phys_addr_t pa_start, pa_end;
> > > u64 i;
> > >
> > > @@ -223,6 +224,9 @@ static void __init kasan_init_shadow(void)
> > > mod_shadow_start = (u64)kasan_mem_to_shadow((void *)MODULES_VADDR);
> > > mod_shadow_end = (u64)kasan_mem_to_shadow((void *)MODULES_END);
> > >
> > > + vmalloc_shadow_start = (u64)kasan_mem_to_shadow((void *)VMALLOC_START);
> > > + vmalloc_shadow_end = (u64)kasan_mem_to_shadow((void *)VMALLOC_END);
> > > +
> > > /*
> > > * We are going to perform proper setup of shadow memory.
> > > * At first we should unmap early shadow (clear_pgds() call below).
> > > @@ -241,12 +245,21 @@ static void __init kasan_init_shadow(void)
> > >
> > > kasan_populate_early_shadow(kasan_mem_to_shadow((void *)PAGE_END),
> > > (void *)mod_shadow_start);
> > > - kasan_populate_early_shadow((void *)kimg_shadow_end,
> > > - (void *)KASAN_SHADOW_END);
> > > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KASAN_VMALLOC)) {
> >
> > Do we really need yet another CONFIG option for KASAN? What's the use-case
> > for *not* enabling this if you're already enabling one of the KASAN
> > backends?
>
> As I know, KASAN_VMALLOC now only supports KASAN_GENERIC and also
> KASAN_VMALLOC uses more memory to map real shadow memory (1/8 of vmalloc va).

The shadow is allocated dynamically though, isn't it?

> There should be someone can enable KASAN_GENERIC but can't use VMALLOC
> due to memory issue.

That doesn't sound particularly realistic to me. The reason I'm pushing here
is because I would _really_ like to move to VMAP stack unconditionally, and
that would effectively force KASAN_VMALLOC to be set if KASAN is in use.

So unless there's a really good reason not to do that, please can we make
this unconditional for arm64? Pretty please?

Will