Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220421072212.608884-1-song@kernel.org> <CAHk-=wi3eu8mdKmXOCSPeTxABVbstbDg1q5Fkak+A9kVwF+fVw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAADnVQKyDwXUMCfmdabbVE0vSGxdpqmWAwHRBqbPLW=LdCnHBQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=whFeBezdSrPy31iYv-UZNnNavymrhqrwCptE4uW8aeaHw@mail.gmail.com> <CAPhsuW7M6exGD3C1cPBGjhU0Y5efxtJ3=0BWNnbuH87TgQMzdg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPhsuW7M6exGD3C1cPBGjhU0Y5efxtJ3=0BWNnbuH87TgQMzdg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Thu, 21 Apr 2022 14:28:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wh1mO5HdrOMTq68WHM51-=jdmQS=KipVYxS+5u3uRc5rg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf] bpf: invalidate unused part of bpf_prog_pack
To:     Song Liu <song@kernel.org>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
        bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Kernel Team <kernel-team@fb.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 12:41 PM Song Liu <song@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> The extra logic I had in the original patch was to erase the memory
> when a BPF program is freed. In this case, the memory will be
> returned to the bpf_prog_pack, and stays as RO+X. Actually, I
> am not quite sure whether we need this logic. If not, we only need
> the much simpler version.

Oh, I think it would be good to do at free time too.

I just would want that to use the same function we already have for
the allocation-time thing, instead of introducing completely new
infrastructure. That was what looked very odd to me.

Now, the _smallest_ patch would likely be to just save away that
'bpf_fill_ill_insns' function pointer in the 'struct bpf_prog_pack'
thing.

It's admittedly kind of silly to do, but it matches that whole silly
"let's pass around a function pointer to a fixed function" model at
allocation time.

I say that's silly, because it's a fixed architecture function and we
could just call it directly. The only valid function there is
jit_fill_hole(), and the only reason it uses that function pointer
seems to be that it's never been exposed as a real function.

So passing it along as a function seems to be _purely_ for the silly
reason that people haven't agreed on a name, and different
architectures use different names (ie power uses
'bpf_jit_fill_ill_insns()', RISC-V calls it 'bpf_fill_ill_insns()',
and everybody else seems to use 'jit_fill_hole'.

I don't know why that decision was made. It looks like a bad one to
me, honestly.

Why not just agree on a name - I suggest 'bpf_jit_fill_hole()' - and
just get rid of that stupid 'bpf_jit_fill_hole_t' type name that only
exists because of this thing?

The bpf headers seem to literally have agreed on a name for that
function -type- only in order to be able to disagree on the name of
the function -name-, and then pass it along as a function pointer
argument instead of just calling it directly.

Very counter-productive.

                 Linus