Message-ID: <1502170045.30154.5.camel@mtkswgap22>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: correct modules range of kernel virtual memory
 layout
From: Miles Chen <miles.chen@mediatek.com>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
CC: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org>, <wsd_upstream@mediatek.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 13:27:25 +0800
In-Reply-To: <1502167450.24380.21.camel@mtkswgap22>
References: <1502103886-19725-1-git-send-email-miles.chen@mediatek.com>
         <20170807131608.GA18817@arm.com>
         <CAKv+Gu9qD_-GNHus5txiqj9eHLpU5S7RX8QxYeUG17Ok0QNz-A@mail.gmail.com>
         <20170807140138.GB18817@arm.com> <1502167450.24380.21.camel@mtkswgap22>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 3322
Lines: 75

On Tue, 2017-08-08 at 12:44 +0800, Miles Chen wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-08-07 at 15:01 +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 02:18:00PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > On 7 August 2017 at 14:16, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 07:04:46PM +0800, Miles Chen wrote:
> > > >> The commit f80fb3a3d508 ("arm64: add support for kernel ASLR")
> > > >> moved module virtual address to
> > > >> [module_alloc_base, module_alloc_base + MODULES_VSIZE).
> > > >>
> > > >> Display module information of the virtual kernel
> > > >> memory layout by using module_alloc_base.
> > > >>
> > > >> testing output:
> > > >> 1) Current implementation:
> > > >> Virtual kernel memory layout:
> > > >>       modules : 0xffffff8000000000 - 0xffffff8008000000   (   128 MB)
> > > >> 2) this patch + KASLR:
> > > >> Virtual kernel memory layout:
> > > >>       modules : 0xffffff8000560000 - 0xffffff8008560000   (   128 MB)
> > > >> 3) this patch + KASLR and a dummy seed:
> > > >> Virtual kernel memory layout:
> > > >>       modules : 0xffffffa7df637000 - 0xffffffa7e7637000   (   128 MB)
> > > >>
> > > >> Signed-off-by: Miles Chen <miles.chen@mediatek.com>
> > > >> ---
> > > >>  arch/arm64/mm/init.c | 5 +++--
> > > >>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > Does this mean the modules code in our pt dumper is busted
> > > > (arch/arm64/mm/dump.c)? Also, what about KASAN, which uses these addresses
> > > > too (in kasan_init)? Should we just remove MODULES_VADDR and MODULES_END
> > > > altogether?
> > > >
> > > 
> > > I don't think we need this patch. The 'module' line simply prints the
> > > VA region that is reserved for modules. The fact that we end up
> > > putting them elsewhere when running randomized does not necessarily
> > > mean this line should reflect that.
> > 
> > I was more concerned by other users of MODULES_VADDR tbh, although I see
> > now that we don't randomize the module region if kasan is enabled. Still,
> > the kcore code adds the modules region as a separate area (distinct from
> > vmalloc) if MODULES_VADDR is defined, the page table dumping code uses
> > MODULES_VADDR to identify the module region and I think we'll get false
> > positives from is_vmalloc_or_module_addr, which again uses the static
> > region.
> > 
> > So, given that MODULES_VADDR never points at the module area, can't we get
> > rid of it?
> 
> Agreed.MODULES_VADDR should be phased out. Considering the kernel
> modules live somewhere between [VMALLOC_START, VMALLOC_END) now:
> (arch/arm64/kernel/module.c:module_alloc). I suggest the following
> changes:
> 
> 1. is_vmalloc_or_module_addr() should return is_vmalloc_addr() directly
> 2. arch/arm64/mm/dump.c does not need MODULES_VADDR and MODULES_END.
> 3. kasan uses [module_alloc_base, module_alloc_base + MODULES_VSIZE) to
> get the shadow memory? (the kernel modules still live in this range when
> kasan is enabled)
> 4. remove modules line in kernel memory layout
> (optional, thanks for Ard's feedback)
> 5. remove MODULE_VADDR, MODULES_END definition

I was wrong about this. is_vmalloc_or_module_addr() is defined
in mm/vmalloc and it uses MODULES_VADDR and MODULES_END.
May it is better to give MODULES_VADDR and MODULES_END
proper values, not remove them.

> Miles
> > 
> > Will
> 
>