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;
Date:   Mon, 10 Jun 2019 13:42:39 -0500
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To:     Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Julia Cartwright <julia@ni.com>, Jessica Yu <jeyu@kernel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
        Edward Cree <ecree@solarflare.com>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/15] static_call: Add inline static call infrastructure
Message-ID: <20190610184239.kqnuqk6ajjf7nccw@treble>
References: <20190605130753.327195108@infradead.org>
 <20190605131945.193241464@infradead.org>
 <37CFAEC1-6D36-4A6D-8C44-F85FCFA053AA@vmware.com>
 <20190607083756.GW3419@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190610171929.3xemvsykvkswcvya@treble>
 <757720BF-5DC6-44E7-A549-E542096BC077@vmware.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <757720BF-5DC6-44E7-A549-E542096BC077@vmware.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 06:33:26PM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote:
> > On Jun 10, 2019, at 10:19 AM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 10:37:56AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>>> +}
> >>>> +
> >>>> +static int static_call_module_notify(struct notifier_block *nb,
> >>>> +				     unsigned long val, void *data)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> +	struct module *mod = data;
> >>>> +	int ret = 0;
> >>>> +
> >>>> +	cpus_read_lock();
> >>>> +	static_call_lock();
> >>>> +
> >>>> +	switch (val) {
> >>>> +	case MODULE_STATE_COMING:
> >>>> +		module_disable_ro(mod);
> >>>> +		ret = static_call_add_module(mod);
> >>>> +		module_enable_ro(mod, false);
> >>> 
> >>> Doesn’t it cause some pages to be W+X ?
> > 
> > How so?
> > 
> >>> Can it be avoided?
> >> 
> >> I don't know why it does this, jump_labels doesn't seem to need this,
> >> and I'm not seeing what static_call needs differently.
> > 
> > I forgot why I did this, but it's probably for the case where there's a
> > static call site in module init code.  It deserves a comment.
> > 
> > Theoretically, jump labels need this to.
> > 
> > BTW, there's a change coming that will require the text_mutex before
> > calling module_{disable,enable}_ro().
> 
> I think that eventually, the most secure flow is for the module executable
> to be write-protected immediately after the module signature is checked and
> then use text_poke() to change the code without removing the
> write-protection in such manner.
> 
> Ideally, these pieces of code (module signature check and static-key/call
> mechanisms) would somehow be isolated.
> 
> I wonder whether static-calls in init-code cannot just be avoided. They
> would most likely introduce more overhead in patching than they would save
> in execution time.

It's a valid question.  Are any tracepoints called from module init?  Or
-- thinking ahead -- are there any pv calls from module init?  That
might be plausible.

-- 
Josh