[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAB=NE6UgFir2u2UKUSqoxFYyuY9rQyJAvifBGi3QU1u15J=ihQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 12:52:06 -0600
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...e.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
rgoldwyn@...e.com, hare <hare@...e.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...hat.com>, rwright@....com,
Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk@....de>,
Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>, martin.wilck@...e.com,
Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@...e.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, shuah@...nel.org,
DSterba@...e.com, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jessica Yu <jeyu@...hat.com>,
Subash Abhinov Kasiviswanathan <subashab@...eaurora.org>,
Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: Re: [RFC 10/10] kmod: add a sanity check on module loading
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 6:53 PM, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> wrote:
> Where does this NULL-deref is the module isn't correctly loaded?
No you are right, sorry -- I had confused a failure to mount over null
deref, my mistake.
>> *Iff* we want a sanity check to verify kmod's umh is not lying to us we
>> need to verify after 0 was returned that it was not lying to us. Since kmod
>> accepts aliases but find_modules_all() only works on the real module name a
>> validation check cannot happen when all you have are aliases.
>
> request_module() should block until resolution, but that's fundamentally
> a userspace problem. Let's not paper over it in kernelspace.
OK -- if userspace messes up again it may be a bit hard to prove
unless we have a validation debug thing in place, would such a thing
in debug form be reasonable ?
>> Yes; the kallsyms code does this on Oops. Not really a big issue in
>> practice, but a nice fix.
>>
>> Ok, will bundle into my queue.
>
> Please submit to Jessica for her module queue, as it's orthogonal
> AFAICT.
Will do.
>> I will note though that I still think there's a bug in this code --
>> upon a failure other "spinning" requests can fail, I believe this may
>> be due to not having another state or informing pending modules too
>> early of a failure but I haven't been able to prove this conjecture
>> yet.
>
> That's possible, but I can't see it from quickly re-checking the code.
>
> The module should be fully usable at this point; the module's init has
> been called successfully, so in the case of __get_fs_type() it should
> now succeed. The module cleans up its init section, but that should be
> independent.
>
> If there is a race, it's likely to be when some other caller wakes the
> queue. Moving the wakeup as soon as possible should make it easier to
> trigger:
>
> diff --git a/kernel/module.c b/kernel/module.c
> index f57dd63186e6..78bd89d41a22 100644
> --- a/kernel/module.c
> +++ b/kernel/module.c
> @@ -3397,6 +3397,7 @@ static noinline int do_init_module(struct module *mod)
>
> /* Now it's a first class citizen! */
> mod->state = MODULE_STATE_LIVE;
> + wake_up_all(&module_wq);
> blocking_notifier_call_chain(&module_notify_list,
> MODULE_STATE_LIVE, mod);
>
> @@ -3445,7 +3446,6 @@ static noinline int do_init_module(struct module *mod)
> */
> call_rcu_sched(&freeinit->rcu, do_free_init);
> mutex_unlock(&module_mutex);
> - wake_up_all(&module_wq);
>
> return 0;
>
Will give this a shot, thanks!
Luis
Powered by blists - more mailing lists