On Thu, Jan 02, 2025 at 04:24:22PM -0800, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> Hi Elliot,
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2024 at 7:33 PM Elliot Berman
> <elliot.berman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 20, 2024 at 06:41:42PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > __module_address() can be invoked within a RCU section, there is no
> > > requirement to have preemption disabled.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure if using rcu_read_lock() will introduce the regression that
> > > has been fixed in commit 14c4c8e41511a ("cfi: Use
> > > rcu_read_{un}lock_sched_notrace").
> > >
> >
> > You can replace the rcu_read_lock_sched_notrace() with guard(rcu)().
> > Regular rcu lock doesn't generate function traces, so the recursive loop
> > isn't possible.
> >
> > I've tested:
> > - the current kernel (no recursive loop)
> > - Revert back to rcu_read_lock_sched() (fails)
>
> Which kernel version did you test? I assume something pre-KCFI as
> arm64 doesn't use this code since v6.1.
>
Ah, thanks for calling me out. I dug a bit more, I thought I was looking
at a recursive loop in the ftrace buffers, but was actually the expected
behavior. When I tested on the other configurations, the stm dummy
driver hadn't kicked in yet by the time I looked at the ftrace. Indeed,
this function code is not used on arm64.
I experimented with an x86 build as well and I was able to get the hang
I remember seeing after some tweaks to force a CFI failure. Still,
guard(rcu)() is okay by me :)
> > - Your series as-is (no recurisve loop)
>
> Note that this patch only adds a comment to is_module_cfi_trap(), so I
> wouldn't expect a functional change.
>
Agreed I wouldn't expect it to make any issues; I mentioned it for
completeness sake.
Regards,
Elliot
