On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 4:58 PM Alexander Potapenko <glider@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 4:31 PM Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 03:26:04PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote: > > > Add architecture specific implementation details for KFENCE and enable > > > KFENCE for the arm64 architecture. In particular, this implements the > > > required interface in <asm/kfence.h>. Currently, the arm64 version does > > > not yet use a statically allocated memory pool, at the cost of a pointer > > > load for each is_kfence_address(). > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Co-developed-by: Alexander Potapenko <glider@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Potapenko <glider@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <elver@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > For ARM64, we would like to solicit feedback on what the best option is > > > to obtain a constant address for __kfence_pool. One option is to declare > > > a memory range in the memory layout to be dedicated to KFENCE (like is > > > done for KASAN), however, it is unclear if this is the best available > > > option. We would like to avoid touching the memory layout. > > > > Sorry for the delay on this. > > NP, thanks for looking! > > > Given that the pool is relatively small (i.e. when compared with our virtual > > address space), dedicating an area of virtual space sounds like it makes > > the most sense here. How early do you need it to be available? > > Yes, having a dedicated address sounds good. > We're inserting kfence_init() into start_kernel() after timekeeping_init(). > So way after mm_init(), if that matters. The question is though, how big should that dedicated area be? Right now KFENCE_NUM_OBJECTS can be up to 16383 (which makes the pool size 64MB), but this number actually comes from the limitation on static objects, so we might want to increase that number on arm64.
