linux-kernel - Re: Bug with paravirt ops and livepatches

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

Message-ID: <20160406165516.GA19648@packer-debian-8-amd64.digitalocean.com>
Date:	Wed, 6 Apr 2016 12:55:16 -0400
From:	Jessica Yu <jeyu@...hat.com>
To:	Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
Cc:	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
	Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
	Chris J Arges <chris.j.arges@...onical.com>,
	eugene.shatokhin@...alab.ru, live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	pmladek@...e.cz
Subject: Re: Bug with paravirt ops and livepatches

+++ Jessica Yu [05/04/16 15:19 -0400]:
>+++ Miroslav Benes [05/04/16 15:07 +0200]:
>>On Mon, 4 Apr 2016, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>>
>>>So I think this doesn't fix the problem.  Dynamic relocations are
>>>applied to the "patch module", whereas the above code deals with the
>>>initialization order of the "patched module".  This distinction
>>>originally confused me as well, until Jessica set me straight.
>>>
>>>Let me try to illustrate the problem with an example.  Imagine you have
>>>a patch module P which applies a patch to module M.  P replaces M's
>>>function F with a new function F', which uses paravirt ops.
>>>
>>>1) Patch P is loaded before module M.  P's new function F' has an
>>>   instruction which is patched by apply_paravirt(), even though the
>>>   patch hasn't been applied yet.
>>>
>>>2) Module M is loaded.  Before applying the patch, livepatch tries to
>>>   apply a klp_reloc to the instruction in F' which was already patched
>>>   by apply_paravirt() in step 1.  This results in undefined behavior
>>>   because it tries to patch the original instruction but instead
>>>   patches the new paravirt instruction.
>>>
>>>So the above patch makes no difference because the paravirt module
>>>loading order doesn't really matter.
>>
>>Hi,
>>
>>we are trying really hard to understand the actual culprit here and as it
>>is quite confusing I have several questions/comments...
>
>I don't have a 100% clear understanding of the whole picture either,
>but I'll try to help clarify up some things..
>
>>1. can you provide dynrela sections of the patch module from
>>https://github.com/dynup/kpatch/issues/580? What is interesting is that
>>kvm_arch_vm_ioctl() function contains rela records only for trivial (==
>>exported) symbols from the first look. The problem should be there only if
>>you want to patch a function which reference some paravirt_ops unexported
>>symbol. For that symbol dynrela should be created.
>
>Just to dispel some confusion over this, kpatch isn't "smart" enough
>yet to differentiate between exported and non-exported symbols, as
>Evgenii already mentioned. Just global and local, and whether the
>symbol belongs to a module or vmlinux. So that means dynrelas are
>indeed being created for the pv_*_ops symbols, despite the fact they
>are exported.

Gah, slight mistake, I should have mentioned that the above case only
applies to patches to modules (i.e. there is no mechanism to detect
exported symbols for patches to modules), but for vmlinux patches
there is (and those stay normal relas). I'm sorry if I confused
anybody. The relevant dynrela generation code is here if anyone's
interested:
https://github.com/dynup/kpatch/blob/master/kpatch-build/create-diff-object.c#L2661

Jessica