On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 2:32 AM Jessica Yu <jeyu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> +++ Andrii Nakryiko [11/11/20 12:11 -0800]:
> >On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 2:13 AM Jessica Yu <jeyu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> +++ Andrii Nakryiko [09/11/20 17:19 -0800]:
> >> [snipped]
> >> >diff --git a/kernel/module.c b/kernel/module.c
> >> >index a4fa44a652a7..f2996b02ab2e 100644
> >> >--- a/kernel/module.c
> >> >+++ b/kernel/module.c
> >> >@@ -380,6 +380,35 @@ static void *section_objs(const struct load_info *info,
> >> > return (void *)info->sechdrs[sec].sh_addr;
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> >+/* Find a module section: 0 means not found. Ignores SHF_ALLOC flag. */
> >> >+static unsigned int find_any_sec(const struct load_info *info, const char *name)
> >> >+{
> >> >+ unsigned int i;
> >> >+
> >> >+ for (i = 1; i < info->hdr->e_shnum; i++) {
> >> >+ Elf_Shdr *shdr = &info->sechdrs[i];
> >> >+ if (strcmp(info->secstrings + shdr->sh_name, name) == 0)
> >> >+ return i;
> >> >+ }
> >> >+ return 0;
> >> >+}
> >> >+
> >> >+/*
> >> >+ * Find a module section, or NULL. Fill in number of "objects" in section.
> >> >+ * Ignores SHF_ALLOC flag.
> >> >+ */
> >> >+static __maybe_unused void *any_section_objs(const struct load_info *info,
> >> >+ const char *name,
> >> >+ size_t object_size,
> >> >+ unsigned int *num)
> >> >+{
> >> >+ unsigned int sec = find_any_sec(info, name);
> >> >+
> >> >+ /* Section 0 has sh_addr 0 and sh_size 0. */
> >> >+ *num = info->sechdrs[sec].sh_size / object_size;
> >> >+ return (void *)info->sechdrs[sec].sh_addr;
> >> >+}
> >> >+
> >>
> >> Hm, I see this patchset has already been applied to bpf-next, but I
> >> guess that doesn't preclude any follow-up patches :-)
> >
> >Of course!
> >
> >>
> >> I am not a huge fan of the code duplication here, and also the fact
> >> that they're only called in one place. any_section_objs() and
> >> find_any_sec() are pretty much identical to section_objs() and
> >> find_sec(), other than the fact the former drops the SHF_ALLOC check.
> >
> >Right, but the alternative was to add a new flag to existing
> >section_objs() and find_sec() functions, which would cause much more
> >code churn for no good reason (besides saving some trivial code
> >duplication). And those true/false flags are harder to read in code
> >anyways.
>
> That's true, all fair points. I thought there was the possibility to
> avoid the code duplication if .BTF were also set to SHF_ALLOC, but I
> see for reasons you explained below it is more trouble than it's worth.
>
> >>
> >> Moreover, since it appears that the ".BTF" section is not marked
> >> SHF_ALLOC, I think this will leave mod->btf_data as a dangling pointer
> >> after the module is done loading and the module's load_info has been
> >> deallocated, since SHF_ALLOC sections are not allocated nor copied to
> >> the module's final location in memory.
> >
> >I can make sure that we also reset the btf_data pointer back to NULL,
> >if that's a big concern.
>
> It's not a terribly huge concern, since mod->btf_data is only accessed
> in the btf coming notifier at the moment, but it's probably best to at
> least not advertise it as a valid pointer anymore after the module is
> done loading. We do some pointer and section size cleanup at the end
> of do_init_module() for sections that are deallocated at the end of
> module load (starting where init_layout.base is reset to NULL),
> we could just tack on mod->btf_data = NULL there as well.
Sounds good, I'll send a follow up patch. Thanks!
>
> >>
> >> Why not simply mark the ".BTF" section in the module SHF_ALLOC? We
> >> already do some sh_flags rewriting in rewrite_section_headers(). Then
> >> the module loader knows to keep the section in memory and you can use
> >> section_objs(). And since the .BTF section stays in module memory,
> >> that might save you the memcpy() to btf->data in btf_parse_module()
> >> (unless that is still needed for some reason).
> >
> >Wasn't aware about rewrite_section_headers() manipulations. Are you
> >suggesting to just add SHF_ALLOC there for the .BTF section from the
> >kernel side? I guess that would work, but won't avoid memory copy (so
> >actually would waste kernel memory, if I understand correctly). The
> >reason being that the module's BTF is registered as an independently
> >ref-counted BTF object, which could be held past the kernel module
> >being unloaded. So I can't directly reference module's .BTF data
> >anyways.
>
> Ah OK, I was not aware that the section could be held past the module
> being unloaded. Then yeah, it would be a memory waste to keep them in
> memory if they are being memcpy'd anyway. Thanks for clarifying!
>
> Jessica
