On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 at 13:49, Will Deacon [off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 08:20:06PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 at 19:26, Will Deacon [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 11:18:04PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:

quoted

The arm64 module region is a 128 MB region that is kept close to
the core kernel, in order to ensure that relative branches are
always in range. So using the same region for programs that do
not have this restriction is wasteful, and preferably avoided.

Now that the core BPF JIT code permits the alloc/free routines to
be overridden, implement them by vmalloc()/vfree() calls from a
dedicated 128 MB region set aside for BPF programs. This ensures
that BPF programs are still in branching range of each other, which
is something the JIT currently depends upon (and is not guaranteed
when using module_alloc() on KASLR kernels like we do currently).
It also ensures that placement of BPF programs does not correlate
with the placement of the core kernel or modules, making it less
likely that leaking the former will reveal the latter.

This also solves an issue under KASAN, where shadow memory is
needlessly allocated for all BPF programs (which don't require KASAN
shadow pages since they are not KASAN instrumented)

Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <redacted>
---
 arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h |  5 ++++-
 arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c   | 13 +++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h
index b96442960aea..ee20fc63899c 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h

@@ -62,8 +62,11 @@
 #define PAGE_OFFSET          (UL(0xffffffffffffffff) - \
      (UL(1) << (VA_BITS - 1)) + 1)
 #define KIMAGE_VADDR         (MODULES_END)
+#define BPF_JIT_REGION_START (VA_START + KASAN_SHADOW_SIZE)
+#define BPF_JIT_REGION_SIZE  (SZ_128M)
+#define BPF_JIT_REGION_END   (BPF_JIT_REGION_START + BPF_JIT_REGION_SIZE)
 #define MODULES_END          (MODULES_VADDR + MODULES_VSIZE)
-#define MODULES_VADDR                (VA_START + KASAN_SHADOW_SIZE)
+#define MODULES_VADDR                (BPF_JIT_REGION_END)
 #define MODULES_VSIZE                (SZ_128M)
 #define VMEMMAP_START                (PAGE_OFFSET - VMEMMAP_SIZE)
 #define PCI_IO_END           (VMEMMAP_START - SZ_2M)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
index a6fdaea07c63..76c2ab40c02d 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c

@@ -940,3 +940,16 @@ struct bpf_prog *bpf_int_jit_compile(struct bpf_prog *prog)
                                         tmp : orig_prog);
      return prog;
 }
+
+void *bpf_jit_alloc_exec(unsigned long size)
+{
+     return __vmalloc_node_range(size, PAGE_SIZE, BPF_JIT_REGION_START,
+                                 BPF_JIT_REGION_END, GFP_KERNEL,
+                                 PAGE_KERNEL_EXEC, 0, NUMA_NO_NODE,
+                                 __builtin_return_address(0));

I guess we'll want VM_IMMEDIATE_UNMAP here if Rich gets that merged.

I think akpm already queued up that patch.

quoted

In the
meantime, I wonder if it's worth zeroing the region in bpf_jit_free_exec()?
(although we'd need the size information...).

Not sure. What exactly would that achieve?

I think the zero encoding is guaranteed to be undefined, so it would limit
the usefulness of any stale, executable TLB entries. However, we'd also need
cache maintenance to make that stuff visible to the I side, so it's probably
not worth it, especially if akpm has queued the stuff from Rich.

Maybe just add an:

/* FIXME: Remove this when VM_IMMEDIATE_UNMAP is supported */
#ifndef VM_IMMEDIATE_UNMAP
#define VM_IMMEDIATE_UNMAP      0
#endif

so we remember to come back and sort this out? Up to you.

I'll just make a note to send out that patch once the definition lands via -akpm