linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/6] module: use list_for_each_entry_rcu() on find_module

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: <alpine.LSU.2.20.1705231638520.19903@pobox.suse.cz>
Date:   Tue, 23 May 2017 16:46:31 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
To:     "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
cc:     shuah@...nel.org, jeyu@...hat.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
        ebiederm@...ssion.com, dmitry.torokhov@...il.com, acme@...hat.com,
        corbet@....net, martin.wilck@...e.com, mmarek@...e.com,
        pmladek@...e.com, hare@...e.com, rwright@....com, jeffm@...e.com,
        DSterba@...e.com, fdmanana@...e.com, neilb@...e.com,
        linux@...ck-us.net, rgoldwyn@...e.com, subashab@...eaurora.org,
        xypron.glpk@....de, keescook@...omium.org, atomlin@...hat.com,
        paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
        jpoimboe@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net, mingo@...hat.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] module: use list_for_each_entry_rcu() on
 find_module_all()

On Thu, 18 May 2017, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:

> The module list has been using RCU in a lot of other calls
> for a while now, we just overlooked changing this one over to
> use RCU.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@...nel.org>
> ---
>  kernel/module.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/module.c b/kernel/module.c
> index 4a3665f8f837..70f494638974 100644
> --- a/kernel/module.c
> +++ b/kernel/module.c
> @@ -602,7 +602,7 @@ static struct module *find_module_all(const char *name, size_t len,
>  
>  	module_assert_mutex_or_preempt();
>  
> -	list_for_each_entry(mod, &modules, list) {
> +	list_for_each_entry_rcu(mod, &modules, list) {
>  		if (!even_unformed && mod->state == MODULE_STATE_UNFORMED)
>  			continue;
>  		if (strlen(mod->name) == len && !memcmp(mod->name, name, len))

This makes sense. It would not be an issue if all callers of 
find_module_all() held module_mutex, but module_kallsyms_lookup_name() 
does not.

There is one more occurrence of just list_for_each_entry(mod, &modules, 
list) in kernel/module.c -- in module_kallsyms_on_each_symbol(). But that 
one is safe because we have to hold the mutex there.

Miroslav