Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/13] mm/execmem, arch: convert remaining overrides of module_alloc to execmem

From: Mike Rapoport <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2023 09:00:53 +0200

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 11:24:39AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 11:58:00AM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 06:14:20PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 10:29:46AM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/module.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/module.c
> > > > index dd851297596e..cd6320de1c54 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/module.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/module.c

...

> > > > -	if (module_direct_base) {
> > > > -		p = __vmalloc_node_range(size, MODULE_ALIGN,
> > > > -					 module_direct_base,
> > > > -					 module_direct_base + SZ_128M,
> > > > -					 GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOWARN,
> > > > -					 PAGE_KERNEL, 0, NUMA_NO_NODE,
> > > > -					 __builtin_return_address(0));
> > > > -	}
> > > > +	module_init_limits();
> > > 
> > > Hmm, this used to be run from subsys_initcall(), but now you're running
> > > it _really_ early, before random_init(), so randomization of the module
> > > space is no longer going to be very random if we don't have early entropy
> > > from the firmware or the CPU, which is likely to be the case on most SoCs.
> > 
> > Well, it will be as random as KASLR. Won't that be enough?
> 
> I don't think that's true -- we have the 'kaslr-seed' property for KASLR,
> but I'm not seeing anything like that for the module randomisation and I
> also don't see why we need to set these limits so early.

x86 needs execmem initialized before ftrace_init() so I thought it would be
best to setup execmem along with most of MM in mm_core_init().

I'll move execmem initialization for !x86 to a later point, say
core_initcall.
 
> Will

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.