Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20181128000754.18056-1-rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>
 <20181128000754.18056-2-rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com> <4883FED1-D0EC-41B0-A90F-1A697756D41D@gmail.com>
 <20181204160304.GB7195@arm.com> <51281e69a3722014f718a6840f43b2e6773eed90.camel@intel.com>
 <CALCETrUiEWkSjnruCbBSi8WsDm071YiU5WEqoPhZbjezS0CrFw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20181205114148.GA15160@arm.com> <CALCETrUdTShjY+tQoRsE1uR1cnL9cr2Trbz-g5=WaLGA3rWXzA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKv+Gu_EEjhwbfp1mdB0Pu3ZyAsZgNeaCDArs569hAeWzHMWpw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALCETrVedB7yacMU=i3JaUZxiwsnM+PnABfG48K9TZK32UWshA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20181206190115.GC10086@cisco> <CALCETrUmxht8dibJPBbPudQnoe6mHsKocEBgkJ7O1eFrVBfekQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <f6096b80bdab59d2d21ece4ff31fcfd36bf6b809.camel@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <f6096b80bdab59d2d21ece4ff31fcfd36bf6b809.camel@intel.com>
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 6 Dec 2018 12:26:18 -0800
Message-ID: <CALCETrUzHzQWTW8ZAz0jL6BA2KmnBPBod8a3oYuwiEhbL98WtQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] vmalloc: New flag for flush before releasing pages
To:     Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>
Cc:     Andrew Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Jessica Yu <jeyu@kernel.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>,
        "Dock, Deneen T" <deneen.t.dock@intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen@linux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com>,
        Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        "Naveen N . Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:20 PM Edgecombe, Rick P
<rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2018-12-06 at 11:19 -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 11:01 AM Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 10:53:50AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > > > If we are going to unmap the linear alias, why not do it at vmall=
oc()
> > > > > time rather than vfree() time?
> > > >
> > > > That=E2=80=99s not totally nuts. Do we ever have code that expects =
__va() to
> > > > work on module data?  Perhaps crypto code trying to encrypt static
> > > > data because our APIs don=E2=80=99t understand virtual addresses.  =
I guess if
> > > > highmem is ever used for modules, then we should be fine.
> > > >
> > > > RO instead of not present might be safer.  But I do like the idea o=
f
> > > > renaming Rick's flag to something like VM_XPFO or VM_NO_DIRECT_MAP =
and
> > > > making it do all of this.
> > >
> > > Yeah, doing it for everything automatically seemed like it was/is
> > > going to be a lot of work to debug all the corner cases where things
> > > expect memory to be mapped but don't explicitly say it. And in
> > > particular, the XPFO series only does it for user memory, whereas an
> > > additional flag like this would work for extra paranoid allocations
> > > of kernel memory too.
> > >
> >
> > I just read the code, and I looks like vmalloc() is already using
> > highmem (__GFP_HIGH) if available, so, on big x86_32 systems, for
> > example, we already don't have modules in the direct map.
> >
> > So I say we go for it.  This should be quite simple to implement --
> > the pageattr code already has almost all the needed logic on x86.  The
> > only arch support we should need is a pair of functions to remove a
> > vmalloc address range from the address map (if it was present in the
> > first place) and a function to put it back.  On x86, this should only
> > be a few lines of code.
> >
> > What do you all think?  This should solve most of the problems we have.
> >
> > If we really wanted to optimize this, we'd make it so that
> > module_alloc() allocates memory the normal way, then, later on, we
> > call some function that, all at once, removes the memory from the
> > direct map and applies the right permissions to the vmalloc alias (or
> > just makes the vmalloc alias not-present so we can add permissions
> > later without flushing), and flushes the TLB.  And we arrange for
> > vunmap to zap the vmalloc range, then put the memory back into the
> > direct map, then free the pages back to the page allocator, with the
> > flush in the appropriate place.
> >
> > I don't see why the page allocator needs to know about any of this.
> > It's already okay with the permissions being changed out from under it
> > on x86, and it seems fine.  Rick, do you want to give some variant of
> > this a try?
> Hi,
>
> Sorry, I've been having email troubles today.
>
> I found some cases where vmap with PAGE_KERNEL_RO happens, which would no=
t set
> NP/RO in the directmap, so it would be sort of inconsistent whether the
> directmap of vmalloc range allocations were readable or not. I couldn't s=
ee any
> places where it would cause problems today though.
>
> I was ready to assume that all TLBs don't cache NP, because I don't know =
how
> usages where a page fault is used to load something could work without lo=
ts of
> flushes.

Or the architecture just fixes up the spurious faults, I suppose.  I'm
only well-educated on the x86 mmu.

> If that's the case, then all archs with directmap permissions could
> share a single vmalloc special permission flush implementation that works=
 like
> Andy described originally. It could be controlled with an
> ARCH_HAS_DIRECT_MAP_PERMS. We would just need something like set_pages_np=
 and
> set_pages_rw on any archs with directmap permissions. So seems simpler to=
 me
> (and what I have been doing) unless I'm missing the problem.

Hmm.  The only reason I've proposed anything fancier was because I was
thinking of minimizing flushes, but I think I'm being silly.  This
sequence ought to work optimally:

- vmalloc(..., VM_HAS_DIRECT_MAP_PERMS);  /* no flushes */

- Write some data, via vmalloc's return address.

- Use some set_memory_whatever() functions to update permissions,
which will flush, hopefully just once.

- Run the module code!

- vunmap -- this will do a single flush that will fix everything.

This does require that set_pages_np() or set_memory_np() or whatever
exists and that it's safe to do that, then flush, and then
set_pages_rw().  So maybe you want set_pages_np_noflush() and
set_pages_rw_noflush() to make it totally clear what's supposed to
happen.

--Andy