linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] Fix "x86/alternatives: Lockdep-enforce text_mutex in text

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:   Thu, 6 Sep 2018 21:40:03 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
        Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] Fix "x86/alternatives: Lockdep-enforce text_mutex
 in text_poke*()"

On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 10:32:19AM -0700, Nadav Amit wrote:
> text_mutex is expected to be held before text_poke() is called, but we
> cannot add a lockdep assertion since kgdb does not take it, and instead
> *supposedly* ensures the lock is not taken and will not be acquired by
> any other core while text_poke() is running.
> 
> The reason for the "supposedly" comment is that it is not entirely clear
> that this would be the case if gdb_do_roundup is zero.

Argh, that's pretty shit code...

Not only is that text_mutex abuse ugly, so too is the fixmap usage from
IRQ context. I suppose this really does require your alternative mm
patches for text_poke().