From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753774AbcAMAb2 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 12 Jan 2016 19:31:28 -0500
Received: from www62.your-server.de ([213.133.104.62]:49856 "EHLO
	www62.your-server.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752716AbcAMAb1 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 12 Jan 2016 19:31:27 -0500
Message-ID: <56959AD8.90206@iogearbox.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 01:31:20 +0100
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Laura Abbott <labbott@fedoraproject.org>
CC: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: Allow vmalloc regions to be set with set_memory_*
References: <1452635187-8057-1-git-send-email-labbott@fedoraproject.org> <20160113000112.GA36310@ast-mbp.thefacebook.com>
In-Reply-To: <20160113000112.GA36310@ast-mbp.thefacebook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Authenticated-Sender: daniel@iogearbox.net
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 01/13/2016 01:01 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 01:46:27PM -0800, Laura Abbott wrote:
>>
>> The range of set_memory_* is currently restricted to the module address
>> range because of difficulties in breaking down larger block sizes.
>> vmalloc maps PAGE_SIZE pages so it is safe to use as well. Update the
>> function ranges and add a comment explaining why the range is restricted
>> the way it is.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <labbott@fedoraproject.org>
>> ---
>> This should let the protections for the eBPF work as expected, I don't
>> know if there is some sort of self test for thatL.
>
> you can test it with:
> # sysctl net.core.bpf_jit_enable=1
> # insmod test_bpf.ko
>
> On x64 it shows:
> test_bpf: Summary: 291 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [282/283 JIT'ed]
>
> arm64 may have less JIT'ed tests.

Also, in that lib/test_bpf.c file, you can do a test by overwriting/'corrupting'
part of the fp->insnsi instructions right after bpf_prog_select_runtime(fp) to
see if setting the bpf_prog as RO works.

Thanks,
Daniel