linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] powerpc/mm: Implement CONFIG_DEBUG

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, 22 Apr 2017 08:58:45 +0200
From:   christophe leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>
To:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Scott Wood <oss@...error.net>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] powerpc/mm: Implement CONFIG_DEBUG_RODATA on PPC32



Le 22/04/2017 à 08:08, Michael Ellerman a écrit :
> "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>> Excerpts from Christophe Leroy's message of April 21, 2017 18:32:
>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/ftrace.c
>>> b/arch/powerpc/kernel/ftrace.c
>>> index 32509de6ce4c..06d2ac53f471 100644
>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/ftrace.c
>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/ftrace.c
>>> @@ -46,6 +46,7 @@ static int
>>> @@ -67,10 +68,11 @@ ftrace_modify_code(unsigned long ip, unsigned int old, unsigned int new)
>>>  	}
>>>
>>>  	/* replace the text with the new text */
>>> -	if (patch_instruction((unsigned int *)ip, new))
>>> -		return -EPERM;
>>> +	set_kernel_text_rw(ip);
>>> +	err = patch_instruction((unsigned int *)ip, new);
>>> +	set_kernel_text_ro(ip);
>>
>> Is there a reason to not put those inside patch_instruction()?
>
> Yes and no.
>
> patch_instruction() is called quite early from apply_feature_fixups(), I
> haven't looked closely but I suspect the set_kernel_text_rx() routines
> won't work that early.
>
> But on the other hand patch_instruction() is used by things other than
> ftrace, like jump labels, so we probably want the rw/ro setting in there
> so that we don't have to go and fixup jump labels etc.
>
> So probably we need a raw_patch_instruction() which does just the
> patching (what patch_instruction() does now), and can be used early in
> boot. And then patch_instruction() would have the rw/ro change in it, so
> that all users of it are OK.
>
> eg ~=:
>
> int raw_patch_instruction(unsigned int *addr, unsigned int instr)
> {
>   ...
> }
>
> int patch_instruction(unsigned int *addr, unsigned int instr)
> {
> 	int err;
>
> 	set_kernel_text_rw(ip);
> 	err = raw_patch_instruction((unsigned int *)ip, new);
> 	set_kernel_text_ro(ip);
>
> 	return err;
> }
>

Shouldn't we then also have some kind of protection against parallel use 
of patch_instruction() like a spin_lock_irqsave(), or is it garantied 
not to happen for other reasons ?

Otherwise, we might end up with one instance setting back the kernel 
text to RO while the other one has just put it RW and is about to patch 
the instruction.

Christophe

---
L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus