On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 06:36:39PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 09:52:41AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 07:00:41PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > > +/**
> > > + * enum execmem_type - types of executable memory ranges
> > > + *
> > > + * There are several subsystems that allocate executable memory.
> > > + * Architectures define different restrictions on placement,
> > > + * permissions, alignment and other parameters for memory that can be used
> > > + * by these subsystems.
> > > + * Types in this enum identify subsystems that allocate executable memory
> > > + * and let architectures define parameters for ranges suitable for
> > > + * allocations by each subsystem.
> > > + *
> > > + * @EXECMEM_DEFAULT: default parameters that would be used for types that
> > > + * are not explcitly defined.
> > > + * @EXECMEM_MODULE_TEXT: parameters for module text sections
> > > + * @EXECMEM_KPROBES: parameters for kprobes
> > > + * @EXECMEM_FTRACE: parameters for ftrace
> > > + * @EXECMEM_BPF: parameters for BPF
> > > + * @EXECMEM_TYPE_MAX:
> > > + */
> > > +enum execmem_type {
> > > + EXECMEM_DEFAULT,
> > > + EXECMEM_MODULE_TEXT = EXECMEM_DEFAULT,
> > > + EXECMEM_KPROBES,
> > > + EXECMEM_FTRACE,
> > > + EXECMEM_BPF,
> > > + EXECMEM_TYPE_MAX,
> > > +};
> >
> > Can we please get a break-down of how all these types are actually
> > different from one another?
> >
> > I'm thinking some platforms have a tiny immediate space (arm64 comes to
> > mind) and has less strict placement constraints for some of them?
>
> Yeah, and really I'd *much* rather deal with that in arch code, as I have said
> several times.
>
> For arm64 we have two bsaic restrictions:
>
> 1) Direct branches can go +/-128M
> We can expand this range by having direct branches go to PLTs, at a
> performance cost.
>
> 2) PREL32 relocations can go +/-2G
> We cannot expand this further.
>
> * We don't need to allocate memory for ftrace. We do not use trampolines.
>
> * Kprobes XOL areas don't care about either of those; we don't place any
> PC-relative instructions in those. Maybe we want to in future.
>
> * Modules care about both; we'd *prefer* to place them within +/-128M of all
> other kernel/module code, but if there's no space we can use PLTs and expand
> that to +/-2G. Since modules can refreence other modules, that ends up
> actually being halved, and modules have to fit within some 2G window that
> also covers the kernel.
>
> * I'm not sure about BPF's requirements; it seems happy doing the same as
> modules.
BPF are happy with vmalloc().
> So if we *must* use a common execmem allocator, what we'd reall want is our own
> types, e.g.
>
> EXECMEM_ANYWHERE
> EXECMEM_NOPLT
> EXECMEM_PREL32
>
> ... and then we use those in arch code to implement module_alloc() and friends.
I'm looking at execmem_types more as definition of the consumers, maybe I
should have named the enum execmem_consumer at the first place.
And the arch constrains defined in struct execmem_range describe how memory
should be allocated for each consumer.
These constraints are defined early at boot and remain static, so
initializing them once and letting a common allocator use them makes
perfect sense to me.
I agree that fallback_{start,end} are not ideal, but we have 3
architectures that have preferred and secondary range for modules. And arm
and powerpc use the same logic for kprobes as well, and I don't see why this
code should be duplicated.
And, for instance, if you decide to place PC-relative instructions if
kprobes XOL areas, you'd only need to update execmem_range for kprobes to
be more like the range for modules.
With central allocator it's easier to deal with the things like
VM_FLUSH_RESET_PERMS and caching of ROX memory and I think it will be more
maintainable that module_alloc(), alloc_insn_page() and
bpf_jit_alloc_exec() spread all over the place.
> Mark.
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
