linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 17/17] module: Prevent module removal racing with 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]

Message-Id: <20190118172334.d7b1bcd580c3f6c4ed388160@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 18 Jan 2019 17:23:34 +0900
From:   Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To:     Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
Cc:     Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Damian Tometzki <linux_dti@...oud.com>,
        linux-integrity <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        "kristen@...ux.intel.com" <kristen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "deneen.t.dock@...el.com" <deneen.t.dock@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/17] module: Prevent module removal racing with
 text_poke()

On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 18:07:03 +0000
Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com> wrote:

> > On Jan 16, 2019, at 11:54 PM, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 16:32:59 -0800
> > Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> From: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
> >> 
> >> It seems dangerous to allow code modifications to take place
> >> concurrently with module unloading. So take the text_mutex while the
> >> memory of the module is freed.
> > 
> > At that point, since the module itself is removed from module list,
> > it seems no actual harm. Or would you have any concern?
> 
> So it appears that you are right and all the users of text_poke() and
> text_poke_bp() do install module notifiers, and remove the module from their
> internal data structure when they are done (*). As long as they prevent
> text_poke*() to be called concurrently (e.g., using jump_label_lock()),
> everything is fine.
> 
> Having said that, the question is whether you “trust” text_poke*() users to
> do so. text_poke() description does not day explicitly that you need to
> prevent modules from being removed.
> 
> What do you say?

I agreed, but in that case, this is just a fool proof. I think we should
prevent this kind of bug by review, and should comment it on text_poke(),
instead of locking text_mutex.

What I thought was even if we take text_mutex here, such user can modify
the (released) module code right after we exit this section.

Maybe we'd better make text_poke() more smart?

> (*) I am not sure about kgdb, but it probably does not matter much

I think we don't need to care about kgdb. It is a tool which should be able
to shoot your feet and we can not prevent it. Only expert can avoid it. :)

Thank you,

-- 
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>