linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/kbuild: enable modversions for symbols exported from asm

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]

Date:   Sat, 10 Dec 2016 01:56:53 +1000
From:   Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
To:     Stanislav Kozina <skozina@...hat.com>
Cc:     Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
        Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>,
        Adam Borowski <kilobyte@...band.pl>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        Debian kernel maintainers <debian-kernel@...ts.debian.org>,
        "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/kbuild: enable modversions for symbols exported
 from asm

On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 15:36:04 +0100
Stanislav Kozina <skozina@...hat.com> wrote:

> >>>> The question is how to provide a similar guarantee if a different way?  
> >>> As a tool to aid distro reviewers, modversions has some value, but the
> >>> debug info parsing tools that have been mentioned in this thread seem
> >>> superior (not that I've tested them).  
> >> On the other hand the big advantage of modversions is that it also
> >> verifies the checksum during runtime (module loading). In other words, I
> >> believe that any other solution should still generate some form of
> >> checksum/watermark which can be easily checked for compatibility on
> >> module load.
> >> It should not be hard to add to the DWARF based tools though. We'd just
> >> parse DWARF data instead of the C code.  
> > A runtime check is still done, with per-module vermagic which distros
> > can change when they bump the ABI version. Is it really necessary to
> > have more than that (i.e., per-symbol versioning)?  
> 
>  From my point of view, it is. We need to allow changing ABI for some 
> modules while maintaining it for others.
> In fact I think that there should be version not only for every exported 
> symbol (in the EXPORT_SYMBOL() sense), but also for every public type 
> (in the sense of eg. structure defined in the public header file).

Well the distro can just append _v2, _v3 to the name of the function
or type if it has to break compat for some reason. Would that be enough?

Thanks,
Nick