Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.34 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.34;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAHk-=wjrZgxjHZuXwrGeFnng_whUmtToCWE5GQ+HORhGSeiX8g@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZRhKq6e5nF/4ZIV1@fedora> <CAB=+i9QiJ=BXkQuCFJTh3dMXrkKQvVA2EM51Mj6SsDMimWQ71g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAB=+i9QiJ=BXkQuCFJTh3dMXrkKQvVA2EM51Mj6SsDMimWQ71g@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Sun, 1 Oct 2023 13:48:21 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whosoBSLAWzSGUZ8s=UwAVG9rsQ9OVPvw97S2RRFGfk2A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Linux 6.6-rc3 (DEBUG_VIRTUAL is unhappy on x86)
To:     Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>,
        James Bottomley <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        David Kaplan <David.Kaplan@amd.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        x86@kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, 1 Oct 2023 at 07:17, Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Peter Zijlstra (1):
> > >       x86,static_call: Fix static-call vs return-thunk
> >
> > Hello, the commit above caused a crash on x86 kernel with
> > CONFIG_DEBUG_VIRTUAL=y.
>
> OK, I looked into this a little bit, and it turns out that the problematic
> address here is from cleanup_trusted() in
> security/keys/trusted-keys/trusted_core.c.
> (and it's builtin due to CONFIG_TRUSTED_KEYS=y)
>
> The function is marked as __exit, so it does not fall within the
> 'core kernel text address range,' which is between _stext and _etext
> (or between _sinittext and _einittext). and thus __text_poke() thinks that
> it's vmalloc/module area.
>
> I think __text_poke() should be taught that functions marked as __exit
> also belong to kernel code just like __init.

I think your patch is fine (well, whitespace-damaged, but conceptually good).

But I also wonder about that

        static_call_cond(trusted_key_exit)();

in cleanup_trusted(). It seems all kinds of pointless to use static
calls for something that is done *once*. That's not an optimization,
that's honestly just _stupid_. It costs more to do the rewriting that
it does to just do the one dynamic indirect call.

Side note: the same is true of the init-time call, which does

                static_call_update(trusted_key_init,
                                   trusted_key_sources[i].ops->init);
                ...
                ret = static_call(trusted_key_init)();

which again is a *lot* more expensive than just doing the indirect
function call.

So while I don't think your patch is wrong, I do think that the cause
here is plain silly code, and that trusted key code simply should not
do the crazy thing it does (and that causes silly problems).

               Linus