[PATCH] riscv: Ensure BPF_JIT_REGION_START aligned with PMD size
Alex Ghiti
alex at ghiti.fr
Thu Jun 17 00:23:04 PDT 2021
Le 16/06/2021 à 02:03, Jisheng Zhang a écrit :
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 20:54:19 +0200
> Alex Ghiti <alex at ghiti.fr> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jisheng,
>
> Hi Alex,
>
>>
>> Le 14/06/2021 à 18:49, Jisheng Zhang a écrit :
>>> From: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang at kernel.org>
>>>
>>> Andreas reported commit fc8504765ec5 ("riscv: bpf: Avoid breaking W^X")
>>> breaks booting with one kind of config file, I reproduced a kernel panic
>>> with the config:
>>>
>>> [ 0.138553] Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address ffffffff81201220
>>> [ 0.139159] Oops [#1]
>>> [ 0.139303] Modules linked in:
>>> [ 0.139601] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 5.13.0-rc5-default+ #1
>>> [ 0.139934] Hardware name: riscv-virtio,qemu (DT)
>>> [ 0.140193] epc : __memset+0xc4/0xfc
>>> [ 0.140416] ra : skb_flow_dissector_init+0x1e/0x82
>>> [ 0.140609] epc : ffffffff8029806c ra : ffffffff8033be78 sp : ffffffe001647da0
>>> [ 0.140878] gp : ffffffff81134b08 tp : ffffffe001654380 t0 : ffffffff81201158
>>> [ 0.141156] t1 : 0000000000000002 t2 : 0000000000000154 s0 : ffffffe001647dd0
>>> [ 0.141424] s1 : ffffffff80a43250 a0 : ffffffff81201220 a1 : 0000000000000000
>>> [ 0.141654] a2 : 000000000000003c a3 : ffffffff81201258 a4 : 0000000000000064
>>> [ 0.141893] a5 : ffffffff8029806c a6 : 0000000000000040 a7 : ffffffffffffffff
>>> [ 0.142126] s2 : ffffffff81201220 s3 : 0000000000000009 s4 : ffffffff81135088
>>> [ 0.142353] s5 : ffffffff81135038 s6 : ffffffff8080ce80 s7 : ffffffff80800438
>>> [ 0.142584] s8 : ffffffff80bc6578 s9 : 0000000000000008 s10: ffffffff806000ac
>>> [ 0.142810] s11: 0000000000000000 t3 : fffffffffffffffc t4 : 0000000000000000
>>> [ 0.143042] t5 : 0000000000000155 t6 : 00000000000003ff
>>> [ 0.143220] status: 0000000000000120 badaddr: ffffffff81201220 cause: 000000000000000f
>>> [ 0.143560] [<ffffffff8029806c>] __memset+0xc4/0xfc
>>> [ 0.143859] [<ffffffff8061e984>] init_default_flow_dissectors+0x22/0x60
>>> [ 0.144092] [<ffffffff800010fc>] do_one_initcall+0x3e/0x168
>>> [ 0.144278] [<ffffffff80600df0>] kernel_init_freeable+0x1c8/0x224
>>> [ 0.144479] [<ffffffff804868a8>] kernel_init+0x12/0x110
>>> [ 0.144658] [<ffffffff800022de>] ret_from_exception+0x0/0xc
>>> [ 0.145124] ---[ end trace f1e9643daa46d591 ]---
>>>
>>> After some investigation, I think I found the root cause: commit
>>> 2bfc6cd81bd ("move kernel mapping outside of linear mapping") moves
>>> BPF JIT region after the kernel:
>>>
>>> The &_end is unlikely aligned with PMD size, so the front bpf jit
>>> region sits with part of kernel .data section in one PMD size mapping.
>>> But kernel is mapped in PMD SIZE, when bpf_jit_binary_lock_ro() is
>>> called to make the first bpf jit prog ROX, we will make part of kernel
>>> .data section RO too, so when we write to, for example memset the
>>> .data section, MMU will trigger a store page fault.
>>
>> Good catch, we make sure no physical allocation happens between _end and
>> the next PMD aligned address, but I missed this one.
>>
>>>
>>> To fix the issue, we need to ensure the BPF JIT region is PMD size
>>> aligned. This patch acchieve this goal by restoring the BPF JIT region
>>> to original position, I.E the 128MB before kernel .text section.
>>
>> But I disagree with your solution: I made sure modules and BPF programs
>> get their own virtual regions to avoid worst case scenario where one
>> could allocate all the space and leave nothing to the other (we are
>> limited to +- 2GB offset). Why don't just align BPF_JIT_REGION_START to
>> the next PMD aligned address?
>
> Originally, I planed to fix the issue by aligning BPF_JIT_REGION_START, but
> IIRC, BPF experts are adding (or have added) "Calling kernel functions from BPF"
> feature, there's a risk that BPF JIT region is beyond the 2GB of module region:
>
> ------
> module
> ------
> kernel
> ------
> BPF_JIT
>
> So I made this patch finally. In this patch, we let BPF JIT region sit
> between module and kernel.
>
From what I read in the lwn article, I'm not sure BPF programs can call
module functions, can someone tell us if it is possible? Or planned?
> To address "make sure modules and BPF programs get their own virtual regions",
> what about something as below (applied against this patch)?
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/pgtable.h
> index 380cd3a7e548..da1158f10b09 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/pgtable.h
> +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/pgtable.h
> @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@
> #define BPF_JIT_REGION_SIZE (SZ_128M)
> #ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
> #define BPF_JIT_REGION_START (BPF_JIT_REGION_END - BPF_JIT_REGION_SIZE)
> -#define BPF_JIT_REGION_END (MODULES_END)
> +#define BPF_JIT_REGION_END (PFN_ALIGN((unsigned long)&_start))
> #else
> #define BPF_JIT_REGION_START (PAGE_OFFSET - BPF_JIT_REGION_SIZE)
> #define BPF_JIT_REGION_END (VMALLOC_END)
> @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@
> /* Modules always live before the kernel */
> #ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
> #define MODULES_VADDR (PFN_ALIGN((unsigned long)&_end) - SZ_2G)
> -#define MODULES_END (PFN_ALIGN((unsigned long)&_start))
> +#define MODULES_END (BPF_JIT_REGION_END)
> #endif
>
>
In case it is possible, I would let the vmalloc allocator handle the
case where modules steal room from BPF: I would then not implement the
above but rather your first patch.
And do not forget to modify Documentation/riscv/vm-layout.rst
accordingly and remove the comment "/* KASLR should leave at least 128MB
for BPF after the kernel */"
Thanks,
Alex
>
>>
>> Again, good catch, thanks,
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Andreas Schwab <schwab at linux-m68k.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang at kernel.org>
>>> ---
>>> arch/riscv/include/asm/pgtable.h | 5 ++---
>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>> index 9469f464e71a..380cd3a7e548 100644
>>> --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>> +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>> @@ -30,9 +30,8 @@
>>>
>>> #define BPF_JIT_REGION_SIZE (SZ_128M)
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
>>> -/* KASLR should leave at least 128MB for BPF after the kernel */
>>> -#define BPF_JIT_REGION_START PFN_ALIGN((unsigned long)&_end)
>>> -#define BPF_JIT_REGION_END (BPF_JIT_REGION_START + BPF_JIT_REGION_SIZE)
>>> +#define BPF_JIT_REGION_START (BPF_JIT_REGION_END - BPF_JIT_REGION_SIZE)
>>> +#define BPF_JIT_REGION_END (MODULES_END)
>>> #else
>>> #define BPF_JIT_REGION_START (PAGE_OFFSET - BPF_JIT_REGION_SIZE)
>>> #define BPF_JIT_REGION_END (VMALLOC_END)
>>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-riscv mailing list
> linux-riscv at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
>
More information about the linux-riscv
mailing list