[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20190118172334.d7b1bcd580c3f6c4ed388160@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 17:23:34 +0900
From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
Cc: Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>, Andy Lutomirski
<luto@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Linux List Kernel
Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, the arch/x86 maintainers
<x86@...nel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Thomas Gleixner
<tglx@...utronix.de>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen
<dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Damian Tometzki <linux_dti@...oud.com>, linux-integrity
<linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>, LSM List
<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>, Andrew Morton
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Kernel Hardening
<kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Will
Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
"kristen@...ux.intel.com" <kristen@...ux.intel.com>,
"deneen.t.dock@...el.com" <deneen.t.dock@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/17] module: Prevent module removal racing with
text_poke()
On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 18:07:03 +0000
Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 16, 2019, at 11:54 PM, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 16:32:59 -0800
> > Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
> >>
> >> 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?
>
> So it appears that you are right and all the users of text_poke() and
> text_poke_bp() do install module notifiers, and remove the module from their
> internal data structure when they are done (*). As long as they prevent
> text_poke*() to be called concurrently (e.g., using jump_label_lock()),
> everything is fine.
>
> Having said that, the question is whether you “trust” text_poke*() users to
> do so. text_poke() description does not day explicitly that you need to
> prevent modules from being removed.
>
> What do you say?
I agreed, but in that case, this is just a fool proof. I think we should
prevent this kind of bug by review, and should comment it on text_poke(),
instead of locking text_mutex.
What I thought was even if we take text_mutex here, such user can modify
the (released) module code right after we exit this section.
Maybe we'd better make text_poke() more smart?
> (*) I am not sure about kgdb, but it probably does not matter much
I think we don't need to care about kgdb. It is a tool which should be able
to shoot your feet and we can not prevent it. Only expert can avoid it. :)
Thank you,
--
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
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.
