Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 17:15:27 -0800
From: Nadav Amit <>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <>
Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <>,
 Rick Edgecombe <>,
 Andy Lutomirski <>,
 Ingo Molnar <>,
 LKML <>,
 X86 ML <>,
 Thomas Gleixner <>,
 Borislav Petkov <>,
 Dave Hansen <>,
 Peter Zijlstra <>,
 Damian Tometzki <>,
 linux-integrity <>,
 LSM List <>,
 Andrew Morton <>,
 Kernel Hardening <>,
 Linux-MM <>,
 Will Deacon <>,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/17] module: Prevent module removal racing with

> On Jan 17, 2019, at 3:58 PM, H. Peter Anvin <> wrote:
> On 1/16/19 11:54 PM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 16:32:59 -0800
>> Rick Edgecombe <> wrote:
>>> From: Nadav Amit <>
>>> It seems dangerous to allow code modifications to take place
>>> concurrently with module unloading. So take the text_mutex while the
>>> memory of the module is freed.
>> At that point, since the module itself is removed from module list,
>> it seems no actual harm. Or would you have any concern?
> The issue isn't the module list, but rather when it is safe to free the
> contents, so we don't clobber anything. We absolutely need to enforce
> that we can't text_poke() something that might have already been freed.
> That being said, we *also* really would prefer to enforce that we can't
> text_poke() memory that doesn't actually contain code; as far as I can
> tell we don't currently do that check.

Yes, that what the mutex was supposed to achieve. It’s not supposed just
to check whether it is a code page, but also that it is the same code
page that you wanted to patch. 

> This, again, is a good use for a separate mm context. We can enforce
> that that context will only ever contain valid page mappings for actual
> code pages.

This will not tell you that you have the *right* code-page. The module
notifiers help to do so, since they synchronize the text poking with
the module removal.

> (Note: in my proposed algorithm, with a separate mm, replace INVLPG with
> switching CR3 if we have to do a rollback or roll forward in the
> breakpoint handler.)

I really need to read your patches more carefully to see what you mean.

Anyhow, so what do you prefer? I’m ok with either one:
	1. Keep this patch
	2. Remove this patch and change into a comment on text_poke()
	3. Just drop the patch

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.