Re: [RFC PATCH 27/28] x86/kernel: Switch to PIE linking for the core kernel

[Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 10:01 PM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Sept 2024 at 21:39, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 9:14 PM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 25 Sept 2024 at 20:54, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 5:02 PM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb+git@xxxxxxxxxx> 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > > Build the kernel as a Position Independent Executable (PIE). This
> > > > > results in more efficient relocation processing for the virtual
> > > > > displacement of the kernel (for KASLR). More importantly, it instructs
> > > > > the linker to generate what is actually needed (a program that can be
> > > > > moved around in memory before execution), which is better than having 
> > > > > to
> > > > > rely on the linker to create a position dependent binary that happens 
> > > > > to
> > > > > tolerate being moved around after poking it in exactly the right 
> > > > > manner.
> > > > >
> > > > > Note that this means that all codegen should be compatible with PIE,
> > > > > including Rust objects, so this needs to switch to the small code 
> > > > > model
> > > > > with the PIE relocation model as well.
> > > >
> > > > I think that related to this work is the patch series [1] that
> > > > introduces the changes necessary to build the kernel as Position
> > > > Independent Executable (PIE) on x86_64 [1]. There are some more places
> > > > that need to be adapted for PIE. The patch series also introduces
> > > > objtool functionality to add validation for x86 PIE.
> > > >
> > > > [1] "[PATCH RFC 00/43] x86/pie: Make kernel image's virtual address 
> > > > flexible"
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/cover.1682673542.git.houwenlong.hwl@xxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hi Uros,
> > >
> > > I am aware of that discussion, as I took part in it as well.
> > >
> > > I don't think any of those changes are actually needed now - did you
> > > notice anything in particular that is missing?
> >
> > Some time ago I went through the kernel sources and proposed several
> > patches that changed all trivial occurrences of non-RIP addresses to
> > RIP ones. The work was partially based on the mentioned patch series,
> > and I remember, I left some of them out [e.g. 1], because they
> > required a temporary variable.
>
> I have a similar patch in my series, but the DEBUG_ENTRY code just uses
>
> pushf 1f@GOTPCREL(%rip)
>
> so no temporaries are needed.
>
> > Also, there was discussion about ftrace
> > [2], where no solution was found.
> >
>
> When linking with -z call-nop=suffix-nop, the __fentry__ call via the
> GOT will be relaxed by the linker into a 5 byte call followed by a 1
> byte NOP, so I don't think we need to do anything special here. It
> might mean we currently lose -mnop-mcount until we find a solution for
> that in the compiler. In case you remember, I contributed and you
> merged a GCC patch that makes the __fentry__ emission logic honour
> -fdirect-access-external-data which should help here. This landed in
> GCC 14.
>
> > Looking through your series, I didn't find some of the non-RIP -> RIP
> > changes proposed by the original series (especially the ftrace part),
> > and noticed that there is no objtool validator proposed to ensure that
> > all generated code is indeed PIE compatible.
> >
>
> What would be the point of that? The linker will complain and throw an
> error if the code cannot be converted into a PIE executable, so I
> don't think we need objtool's help for that.

Indeed.

> > Speaking of non-RIP -> RIP changes that require a temporary - would it
> > be beneficial to make a macro that would use the RIP form only when
> > #ifdef CONFIG_X86_PIE? That would avoid code size increase when PIE is
> > not needed.
> >
>
> This series does not make the PIE support configurable. Do you think
> the code size increase is a concern if all GOT based symbol references
> are elided, e.g, via -fdirect-access-external-data?

I was looking at the code size measurement of the original patch
series (perhaps these are not relevant with your series) and I think
2.2% - 2.4% code size increase can be problematic. Can you perhaps
provide new code size increase measurements with your patches applied?

Thanks and BR,
Uros.