linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] module: Fix missing to hold module_mutex lock in module_kallsyms_lookup

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:52:33 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc:	He Kuang <hekuang@...wei.com>, wangnan0@...wei.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] module: Fix missing to hold module_mutex lock in
 module_kallsyms_lookup_name

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 10:01:35AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Peter?

> module: weaken locking assertion for oops path.
> 
> We don't actually hold the module_mutex when calling find_module_all
> from module_kallsyms_lookup_name: that's because it's used by the oops
> code and we don't want to deadlock.
> 
> However, access to the list read-only is safe if preempt is disabled,
> so we can weaken the assertion.  Keep a strong version for external
> callers though.
> 
> Fixes: 0be964be0d45 ("module: Sanitize RCU usage and locking")
> Reported-by: He Kuang <hekuang@...wei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/module.c b/kernel/module.c
> index 4d2b82e610e2..b86b7bf1be38 100644
> --- a/kernel/module.c
> +++ b/kernel/module.c
> @@ -602,13 +602,16 @@ const struct kernel_symbol *find_symbol(const char *name,
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(find_symbol);
>  
> -/* Search for module by name: must hold module_mutex. */
> +/*
> + * Search for module by name: must hold module_mutex (or preempt disabled
> + * for read-only access).
> + */
>  static struct module *find_module_all(const char *name, size_t len,
>  				      bool even_unformed)
>  {
>  	struct module *mod;
>  
> -	module_assert_mutex();
> +	module_assert_mutex_or_preempt();

Yeah, that should be fine indeed, I went by that comment you just
expanded.

The operation itself does indeed not modify data at all, so the
preempt_disable is perfectly adequate.

Thanks!

Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/