[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54F7A8D9.7090808@hitachi.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 09:52:41 +0900
From: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.cz>
CC: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Seth Jennings <sjenning@...hat.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.cz>,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>, mingo@...nel.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, oleg@...hat.com,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, andi@...stfloor.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] livepatch: fix patched module loading race
(2015/03/04 22:17), Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Tue 2015-03-03 17:02:22, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>> It's possible for klp_register_patch() to see a module before the COMING
>> notifier is called, or after the GOING notifier is called.
>>
>> That can cause all kinds of ugly races. As Pter Mladek reported:
>>
>> "The problem is that we do not keep the klp_mutex lock all the time when
>> the module is being added or removed.
>>
>> First, the module is visible even before ftrace is ready. If we enable a patch
>> in this time frame, adding ftrace ops will fail and the patch will get rejected
>> just because bad timing.
>
> Ah, this is not true after all. I did not properly check when
> MODULE_STATE_COMING was set. I though that it was before ftrace was
> initialized but it was not true.
>
>
>> Second, if we are "lucky" and enable the patch for the coming module when the
>> ftrace is ready but before the module notifier has been called. The notifier
>> will try to enable the patch as well. It will detect that it is already patched,
>> return error, and the module will get rejected just because bad
>> timing. The more serious problem is that it will not call the notifier for
>> going module, so that the mess will stay there and we wont be able to load
>> the module later.
>
> Ah, the race is there but the effect is not that serious in the
> end. It seems that errors from module notifiers are ignored. In fact,
> we do not propagate the error from klp_module_notify_coming(). It means
> that WARN() from klp_enable_object() will be printed but the module
> will be loaded and patched.
>
> I am sorry, I was confused by kGraft where kgr_module_init() was
> called directly from module_load(). The errors were propagated. It
> means that kGraft rejects module when the patch cannot be applied.
>
> Note that the current solution is perfectly fine for the simple
> consistency model.
>
>
>> Third, similar problems are there for going module. If a patch is enabled after
>> the notifier finishes but before the module is removed from the list of modules,
>> the new patch will be applied to the module. The module might disappear at
>> anytime when the patch enabling is in progress, so there might be an access out
>> of memory. Or the whole patch might be applied and some mess will be left,
>> so it will not be possible to load/patch the module again."
>
> This is true.
No, that's not true if you try_get_module() before patching. After the
module state goes GOING (more correctly say, after try_release_module_ref()
succeeded), all try_get_module() must fail :)
So, please make sure to get module when applying patches.
Thank you,
--
Masami HIRAMATSU
Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Research Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists