[PATCH net] bpf: disable broken write protection on i386

Subsystems: the rest, x86 architecture (32-bit and 64-bit)

STALE3434d

7 messages, 3 authors, 2017-03-08 · open the first message on its own page

[PATCH net] bpf: disable broken write protection on i386

From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Date: 2017-03-04 03:23:37

Since d2852a224050 ("arch: add ARCH_HAS_SET_MEMORY config") and
9d876e79df6a ("bpf: fix unlocking of jited image when module ronx
not set") that uses the former, Fengguang reported random corruptions
on his i386 test machine [1]. On i386 there is no JIT available,
and since his kernel config doesn't have kernel modules enabled,
there was also no DEBUG_SET_MODULE_RONX enabled before which would
set interpreted bpf_prog image as read-only like we do in various
other cases for quite some time now, e.g. x86_64, arm64, etc. Thus,
the difference with above commits was that we now used set_memory_ro()
and set_memory_rw() on i386, which resulted in these issues. When
reproducing this with Fengguang's config and qemu image, I changed
lib/test_bpf.c to be run during boot instead of relying on trinity
to fiddle with cBPF.

The issues I saw with the BPF test suite when set_memory_ro() and
set_memory_rw() is used to write protect image on i386 is that after
a number of tests I noticed a corruption happening in bpf_prog_realloc().
Specifically, fp_old's content gets corrupted right *after* the
(unrelated) __vmalloc() call and contains only zeroes right after
the call instead of the original prog data. fp_old should have been
freed later on via __bpf_prog_free() *after* we copied all the data
over to the newly allocated fp. Result looks like:

  [...]
  [   13.107240] test_bpf: #249 JMP_JSET_X: if (0x3 & 0x2) return 1 jited:0 17 PASS
  [   13.108182] test_bpf: #250 JMP_JSET_X: if (0x3 & 0xffffffff) return 1 jited:0 17 PASS
  [   13.109206] test_bpf: #251 JMP_JA: Jump, gap, jump, ... jited:0 16 PASS
  [   13.110493] test_bpf: #252 BPF_MAXINSNS: Maximum possible literals jited:0 12 PASS
  [   13.111885] test_bpf: #253 BPF_MAXINSNS: Single literal jited:0 8 PASS
  [   13.112804] test_bpf: #254 BPF_MAXINSNS: Run/add until end jited:0 6341 PASS
  [   13.177195] test_bpf: #255 BPF_MAXINSNS: Too many instructions PASS
  [   13.177689] test_bpf: #256 BPF_MAXINSNS: Very long jump jited:0 9 PASS
  [   13.178611] test_bpf: #257 BPF_MAXINSNS: Ctx heavy transformations
  [   13.178713] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 00000034
  [   13.179740] IP: bpf_prog_realloc+0x5b/0x90
  [   13.180017] *pde = 00000000
  [   13.180017]
  [   13.180017] Oops: 0002 [#1] DEBUG_PAGEALLOC
  [   13.180017] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper Not tainted 4.10.0-57268-gd627975-dirty #50
  [   13.180017] task: 401ec000 task.stack: 401f2000
  [   13.180017] EIP: bpf_prog_realloc+0x5b/0x90
  [   13.180017] EFLAGS: 00210246 CPU: 0
  [   13.180017] EAX: 00000000 EBX: 57ae1000 ECX: 00000000 EDX: 57ae1000
  [   13.180017] ESI: 00000019 EDI: 57b07000 EBP: 401f3e74 ESP: 401f3e68
  [   13.180017]  DS: 007b ES: 007b FS: 0000 GS: 0000 SS: 0068
  [   13.180017] CR0: 80050033 CR2: 00000034 CR3: 12cb1000 CR4: 00000610
  [   13.180017] DR0: 00000000 DR1: 00000000 DR2: 00000000 DR3: 00000000
  [   13.180017] DR6: fffe0ff0 DR7: 00000400
  [   13.180017] Call Trace:
  [   13.180017]  bpf_prepare_filter+0x317/0x3a0
  [   13.180017]  bpf_prog_create+0x65/0xa0
  [   13.180017]  test_bpf_init+0x1ca/0x628
  [   13.180017]  ? test_hexdump_init+0xb5/0xb5
  [   13.180017]  do_one_initcall+0x7c/0x11c
  [...]

When using trinity from Fengguang's reproducer, the corruptions were
at inconsistent places, presumably from code dealing with allocations
and seeing similar effects as mentioned above.

Not using set_memory_ro() and set_memory_rw() lets the test suite
run just fine as expected, thus it looks like using set_memory_*()
on i386 seems broken and mentioned commits just uncovered it. Also,
for checking, I enabled DEBUG_RODATA_TEST for that kernel.

Latter shows that memory protecting the kernel seems not working either
on i386 (!). Test suite output:

  [...]
  [   12.692836] Write protecting the kernel text: 13416k
  [   12.693309] Write protecting the kernel read-only data: 5292k
  [   12.693802] rodata_test: test data was not read only
  [...]

Work-around to not enable ARCH_HAS_SET_MEMORY for i386 is not optimal
as it doesn't fix the issue in presumably broken set_memory_*(), but
it at least avoids people avoid having to deal with random corruptions
that are hard to track down for the time being until a real fix can
be found.

  [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/3/2/648

Reported-by: Fengguang Wu <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Cc: Laura Abbott <redacted>
Cc: Kees Cook <redacted>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
---
 [ Sending to -net as bpf related, but I don't mind to route it
   elsewhere, too. ]

 arch/x86/Kconfig | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
index cc98d5a..626dc6a 100644
--- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
@@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ config X86
 	select ARCH_HAS_KCOV			if X86_64
 	select ARCH_HAS_MMIO_FLUSH
 	select ARCH_HAS_PMEM_API		if X86_64
-	select ARCH_HAS_SET_MEMORY
+	select ARCH_HAS_SET_MEMORY		if X86_64
 	select ARCH_HAS_SG_CHAIN
 	select ARCH_HAS_STRICT_KERNEL_RWX
 	select ARCH_HAS_STRICT_MODULE_RWX
-- 
1.9.3

Re: [PATCH net] bpf: disable broken write protection on i386

From: Kees Cook <hidden>
Date: 2017-03-06 18:39:31

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 7:23 PM, Daniel Borkmann [off-list ref] wrote:
Since d2852a224050 ("arch: add ARCH_HAS_SET_MEMORY config") and
9d876e79df6a ("bpf: fix unlocking of jited image when module ronx
not set") that uses the former, Fengguang reported random corruptions
on his i386 test machine [1]. On i386 there is no JIT available,
and since his kernel config doesn't have kernel modules enabled,
there was also no DEBUG_SET_MODULE_RONX enabled before which would
set interpreted bpf_prog image as read-only like we do in various
other cases for quite some time now, e.g. x86_64, arm64, etc. Thus,
the difference with above commits was that we now used set_memory_ro()
and set_memory_rw() on i386, which resulted in these issues. When
reproducing this with Fengguang's config and qemu image, I changed
lib/test_bpf.c to be run during boot instead of relying on trinity
to fiddle with cBPF.

The issues I saw with the BPF test suite when set_memory_ro() and
set_memory_rw() is used to write protect image on i386 is that after
a number of tests I noticed a corruption happening in bpf_prog_realloc().
Specifically, fp_old's content gets corrupted right *after* the
(unrelated) __vmalloc() call and contains only zeroes right after
the call instead of the original prog data. fp_old should have been
freed later on via __bpf_prog_free() *after* we copied all the data
over to the newly allocated fp. Result looks like:

  [...]
  [   13.107240] test_bpf: #249 JMP_JSET_X: if (0x3 & 0x2) return 1 jited:0 17 PASS
  [   13.108182] test_bpf: #250 JMP_JSET_X: if (0x3 & 0xffffffff) return 1 jited:0 17 PASS
  [   13.109206] test_bpf: #251 JMP_JA: Jump, gap, jump, ... jited:0 16 PASS
  [   13.110493] test_bpf: #252 BPF_MAXINSNS: Maximum possible literals jited:0 12 PASS
  [   13.111885] test_bpf: #253 BPF_MAXINSNS: Single literal jited:0 8 PASS
  [   13.112804] test_bpf: #254 BPF_MAXINSNS: Run/add until end jited:0 6341 PASS
  [   13.177195] test_bpf: #255 BPF_MAXINSNS: Too many instructions PASS
  [   13.177689] test_bpf: #256 BPF_MAXINSNS: Very long jump jited:0 9 PASS
  [   13.178611] test_bpf: #257 BPF_MAXINSNS: Ctx heavy transformations
  [   13.178713] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 00000034
  [   13.179740] IP: bpf_prog_realloc+0x5b/0x90
  [   13.180017] *pde = 00000000
  [   13.180017]
  [   13.180017] Oops: 0002 [#1] DEBUG_PAGEALLOC
  [   13.180017] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper Not tainted 4.10.0-57268-gd627975-dirty #50
  [   13.180017] task: 401ec000 task.stack: 401f2000
  [   13.180017] EIP: bpf_prog_realloc+0x5b/0x90
  [   13.180017] EFLAGS: 00210246 CPU: 0
  [   13.180017] EAX: 00000000 EBX: 57ae1000 ECX: 00000000 EDX: 57ae1000
  [   13.180017] ESI: 00000019 EDI: 57b07000 EBP: 401f3e74 ESP: 401f3e68
  [   13.180017]  DS: 007b ES: 007b FS: 0000 GS: 0000 SS: 0068
  [   13.180017] CR0: 80050033 CR2: 00000034 CR3: 12cb1000 CR4: 00000610
  [   13.180017] DR0: 00000000 DR1: 00000000 DR2: 00000000 DR3: 00000000
  [   13.180017] DR6: fffe0ff0 DR7: 00000400
  [   13.180017] Call Trace:
  [   13.180017]  bpf_prepare_filter+0x317/0x3a0
  [   13.180017]  bpf_prog_create+0x65/0xa0
  [   13.180017]  test_bpf_init+0x1ca/0x628
  [   13.180017]  ? test_hexdump_init+0xb5/0xb5
  [   13.180017]  do_one_initcall+0x7c/0x11c
  [...]

When using trinity from Fengguang's reproducer, the corruptions were
at inconsistent places, presumably from code dealing with allocations
and seeing similar effects as mentioned above.

Not using set_memory_ro() and set_memory_rw() lets the test suite
run just fine as expected, thus it looks like using set_memory_*()
on i386 seems broken and mentioned commits just uncovered it. Also,
for checking, I enabled DEBUG_RODATA_TEST for that kernel.

Latter shows that memory protecting the kernel seems not working either
on i386 (!). Test suite output:

  [...]
  [   12.692836] Write protecting the kernel text: 13416k
  [   12.693309] Write protecting the kernel read-only data: 5292k
  [   12.693802] rodata_test: test data was not read only
  [...]

Work-around to not enable ARCH_HAS_SET_MEMORY for i386 is not optimal
as it doesn't fix the issue in presumably broken set_memory_*(), but
it at least avoids people avoid having to deal with random corruptions
that are hard to track down for the time being until a real fix can
be found.
Wow. Uhm, so, something must be _really_ broken. i386 should have no
problem with using the set_memory_*() functions. The fact that
DEBUG_RODATA_TEST failed is also pretty crazy, but may be unrelated
(that test was just refactored too).

Is it possible that it's just the enabling of set_memory_*() for the
non-modular case? The ARCH_HAS_SET_MEMORY commit is just a convenience
config; i386 has had those functions for a while now, and they're the
same between x86_64 and i386. O_o Perhaps they aren't safe on i386 for
non-modular addresses?

I do a few X86_32 and 64 differences in arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c,
though. I wonder about __set_pmd_pte(), but I haven't looked closely
at x86 paging code before...
quoted hunk
  [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/3/2/648

Reported-by: Fengguang Wu <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Cc: Laura Abbott <redacted>
Cc: Kees Cook <redacted>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
---
 [ Sending to -net as bpf related, but I don't mind to route it
   elsewhere, too. ]

 arch/x86/Kconfig | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
index cc98d5a..626dc6a 100644
--- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
@@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ config X86
        select ARCH_HAS_KCOV                    if X86_64
        select ARCH_HAS_MMIO_FLUSH
        select ARCH_HAS_PMEM_API                if X86_64
-       select ARCH_HAS_SET_MEMORY
+       select ARCH_HAS_SET_MEMORY              if X86_64
        select ARCH_HAS_SG_CHAIN
        select ARCH_HAS_STRICT_KERNEL_RWX
        select ARCH_HAS_STRICT_MODULE_RWX
--
1.9.3
I'm okay with this patch since only BPF pays attention to that CONFIG,
but we need to fix the problem. :)

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security

Re: [PATCH net] bpf: disable broken write protection on i386

From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Date: 2017-03-06 18:36:20

On 03/06/2017 07:11 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 7:23 PM, Daniel Borkmann [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Since d2852a224050 ("arch: add ARCH_HAS_SET_MEMORY config") and
9d876e79df6a ("bpf: fix unlocking of jited image when module ronx
not set") that uses the former, Fengguang reported random corruptions
on his i386 test machine [1]. On i386 there is no JIT available,
and since his kernel config doesn't have kernel modules enabled,
there was also no DEBUG_SET_MODULE_RONX enabled before which would
set interpreted bpf_prog image as read-only like we do in various
other cases for quite some time now, e.g. x86_64, arm64, etc. Thus,
the difference with above commits was that we now used set_memory_ro()
and set_memory_rw() on i386, which resulted in these issues. When
reproducing this with Fengguang's config and qemu image, I changed
lib/test_bpf.c to be run during boot instead of relying on trinity
to fiddle with cBPF.

The issues I saw with the BPF test suite when set_memory_ro() and
set_memory_rw() is used to write protect image on i386 is that after
a number of tests I noticed a corruption happening in bpf_prog_realloc().
Specifically, fp_old's content gets corrupted right *after* the
(unrelated) __vmalloc() call and contains only zeroes right after
the call instead of the original prog data. fp_old should have been
freed later on via __bpf_prog_free() *after* we copied all the data
over to the newly allocated fp. Result looks like:

   [...]
   [   13.107240] test_bpf: #249 JMP_JSET_X: if (0x3 & 0x2) return 1 jited:0 17 PASS
   [   13.108182] test_bpf: #250 JMP_JSET_X: if (0x3 & 0xffffffff) return 1 jited:0 17 PASS
   [   13.109206] test_bpf: #251 JMP_JA: Jump, gap, jump, ... jited:0 16 PASS
   [   13.110493] test_bpf: #252 BPF_MAXINSNS: Maximum possible literals jited:0 12 PASS
   [   13.111885] test_bpf: #253 BPF_MAXINSNS: Single literal jited:0 8 PASS
   [   13.112804] test_bpf: #254 BPF_MAXINSNS: Run/add until end jited:0 6341 PASS
   [   13.177195] test_bpf: #255 BPF_MAXINSNS: Too many instructions PASS
   [   13.177689] test_bpf: #256 BPF_MAXINSNS: Very long jump jited:0 9 PASS
   [   13.178611] test_bpf: #257 BPF_MAXINSNS: Ctx heavy transformations
   [   13.178713] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 00000034
   [   13.179740] IP: bpf_prog_realloc+0x5b/0x90
   [   13.180017] *pde = 00000000
   [   13.180017]
   [   13.180017] Oops: 0002 [#1] DEBUG_PAGEALLOC
   [   13.180017] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper Not tainted 4.10.0-57268-gd627975-dirty #50
   [   13.180017] task: 401ec000 task.stack: 401f2000
   [   13.180017] EIP: bpf_prog_realloc+0x5b/0x90
   [   13.180017] EFLAGS: 00210246 CPU: 0
   [   13.180017] EAX: 00000000 EBX: 57ae1000 ECX: 00000000 EDX: 57ae1000
   [   13.180017] ESI: 00000019 EDI: 57b07000 EBP: 401f3e74 ESP: 401f3e68
   [   13.180017]  DS: 007b ES: 007b FS: 0000 GS: 0000 SS: 0068
   [   13.180017] CR0: 80050033 CR2: 00000034 CR3: 12cb1000 CR4: 00000610
   [   13.180017] DR0: 00000000 DR1: 00000000 DR2: 00000000 DR3: 00000000
   [   13.180017] DR6: fffe0ff0 DR7: 00000400
   [   13.180017] Call Trace:
   [   13.180017]  bpf_prepare_filter+0x317/0x3a0
   [   13.180017]  bpf_prog_create+0x65/0xa0
   [   13.180017]  test_bpf_init+0x1ca/0x628
   [   13.180017]  ? test_hexdump_init+0xb5/0xb5
   [   13.180017]  do_one_initcall+0x7c/0x11c
   [...]

When using trinity from Fengguang's reproducer, the corruptions were
at inconsistent places, presumably from code dealing with allocations
and seeing similar effects as mentioned above.

Not using set_memory_ro() and set_memory_rw() lets the test suite
run just fine as expected, thus it looks like using set_memory_*()
on i386 seems broken and mentioned commits just uncovered it. Also,
for checking, I enabled DEBUG_RODATA_TEST for that kernel.

Latter shows that memory protecting the kernel seems not working either
on i386 (!). Test suite output:

   [...]
   [   12.692836] Write protecting the kernel text: 13416k
   [   12.693309] Write protecting the kernel read-only data: 5292k
   [   12.693802] rodata_test: test data was not read only
   [...]

Work-around to not enable ARCH_HAS_SET_MEMORY for i386 is not optimal
as it doesn't fix the issue in presumably broken set_memory_*(), but
it at least avoids people avoid having to deal with random corruptions
that are hard to track down for the time being until a real fix can
be found.
Wow. Uhm, so, something must be _really_ broken. i386 should have no
problem with using the set_memory_*() functions. The fact that
That was my understanding as well. ;)
DEBUG_RODATA_TEST failed is also pretty crazy, but may be unrelated
(that test was just refactored too).
I'll double check DEBUG_RODATA_TEST on x86_64 to make sure it succeeds
there; have only tested that one on i386.
Is it possible that it's just the enabling of set_memory_*() for the
non-modular case? The ARCH_HAS_SET_MEMORY commit is just a convenience
config; i386 has had those functions for a while now, and they're the
same between x86_64 and i386. O_o Perhaps they aren't safe on i386 for
non-modular addresses?
I can do a few more tests with the kernel I have. I'm also totally
fine if we drop this patch; it's just rc1, so there's plenty of time
till a final release.

I'll send a report to x86/mm experts, perhaps they have some insights.
I do a few X86_32 and 64 differences in arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c,
though. I wonder about __set_pmd_pte(), but I haven't looked closely
at x86 paging code before...
Me neither.
quoted
   [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/3/2/648

Reported-by: Fengguang Wu <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Cc: Laura Abbott <redacted>
Cc: Kees Cook <redacted>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
---
  [ Sending to -net as bpf related, but I don't mind to route it
    elsewhere, too. ]

  arch/x86/Kconfig | 2 +-
  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
index cc98d5a..626dc6a 100644
--- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
@@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ config X86
         select ARCH_HAS_KCOV                    if X86_64
         select ARCH_HAS_MMIO_FLUSH
         select ARCH_HAS_PMEM_API                if X86_64
-       select ARCH_HAS_SET_MEMORY
+       select ARCH_HAS_SET_MEMORY              if X86_64
         select ARCH_HAS_SG_CHAIN
         select ARCH_HAS_STRICT_KERNEL_RWX
         select ARCH_HAS_STRICT_MODULE_RWX
--
1.9.3
I'm okay with this patch since only BPF pays attention to that CONFIG,
but we need to fix the problem. :)

-Kees

Re: [PATCH net] bpf: disable broken write protection on i386

From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Date: 2017-03-06 18:52:13

From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2017 19:35:47 +0100
I can do a few more tests with the kernel I have. I'm also totally
fine if we drop this patch; it's just rc1, so there's plenty of time
till a final release.
I would really prefer we get to the bottom of this rather than apply
the quick band-aid on this one.

Thanks.

Re: [PATCH net] bpf: disable broken write protection on i386

From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Date: 2017-03-06 22:33:23

On 03/06/2017 07:52 PM, David Miller wrote:
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2017 19:35:47 +0100
quoted
I can do a few more tests with the kernel I have. I'm also totally
fine if we drop this patch; it's just rc1, so there's plenty of time
till a final release.
I would really prefer we get to the bottom of this rather than apply
the quick band-aid on this one.
Ok, sounds reasonable.

Re: [PATCH net] bpf: disable broken write protection on i386

From: Kees Cook <hidden>
Date: 2017-03-08 18:42:03

On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Kees Cook [off-list ref] wrote:
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 7:23 PM, Daniel Borkmann [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Latter shows that memory protecting the kernel seems not working either
on i386 (!). Test suite output:

  [...]
  [   12.692836] Write protecting the kernel text: 13416k
  [   12.693309] Write protecting the kernel read-only data: 5292k
  [   12.693802] rodata_test: test data was not read only
  [...]

Work-around to not enable ARCH_HAS_SET_MEMORY for i386 is not optimal
as it doesn't fix the issue in presumably broken set_memory_*(), but
it at least avoids people avoid having to deal with random corruptions
that are hard to track down for the time being until a real fix can
be found.
Wow. Uhm, so, something must be _really_ broken. i386 should have no
problem with using the set_memory_*() functions. The fact that
DEBUG_RODATA_TEST failed is also pretty crazy, but may be unrelated
(that test was just refactored too).
I'm not able to reproduce this. I built Linus's tree and rodata_test
passes for me on i386. I tried the .config from Fengguang (with
RODATA_TEST=y added), but it still passes for me:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/3/1/344

I wonder if something change changed already in the tree? Can you
still reproduce this?

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security

Re: [PATCH net] bpf: disable broken write protection on i386

From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Date: 2017-03-08 21:21:05

On 03/08/2017 07:40 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Kees Cook [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 7:23 PM, Daniel Borkmann [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Latter shows that memory protecting the kernel seems not working either
on i386 (!). Test suite output:

   [...]
   [   12.692836] Write protecting the kernel text: 13416k
   [   12.693309] Write protecting the kernel read-only data: 5292k
   [   12.693802] rodata_test: test data was not read only
   [...]

Work-around to not enable ARCH_HAS_SET_MEMORY for i386 is not optimal
as it doesn't fix the issue in presumably broken set_memory_*(), but
it at least avoids people avoid having to deal with random corruptions
that are hard to track down for the time being until a real fix can
be found.
Wow. Uhm, so, something must be _really_ broken. i386 should have no
problem with using the set_memory_*() functions. The fact that
DEBUG_RODATA_TEST failed is also pretty crazy, but may be unrelated
(that test was just refactored too).
I'm not able to reproduce this. I built Linus's tree and rodata_test
passes for me on i386. I tried the .config from Fengguang (with
RODATA_TEST=y added), but it still passes for me:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/3/1/344

I wonder if something change changed already in the tree? Can you
still reproduce this?
I'll answer in a bit an will move the discussion over to the other
thread on the same topic ("[net/bpf] 3051bf36c2 BUG: unable to handle
kernel paging request at 0000a7cf" [1]) with you, Laura and Dave in
Cc as well.

   [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/3/8/620
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help