linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] kbuild: check uniqueness of basename of modules

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:   Wed, 15 May 2019 09:20:20 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
Cc:     Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>,
        Lucas De Marchi <lucas.de.marchi@...il.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] kbuild: check uniqueness of basename of modules

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 04:53:15PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 4:40 PM Masahiro Yamada
> <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com> wrote:
> >
> > In the recent build test of linux-next, Stephen saw a build error
> > caused by a broken .tmp_versions/*.mod file:
> >
> >   https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/5/13/991
> >
> > drivers/net/phy/asix.ko and drivers/net/usb/asix.ko have the same
> > basename, and there is a race in generating .tmp_versions/asix.mod
> >
> > Kbuild has not checked this before, and it occasionally shows up with
> > obscure error message when this kind of race occurs.
> >
> > It is not trivial to catch this potential issue by eyes.
> >
> > Hence, this script.
> >
> > I compile-tested allmodconfig for the latest kernel as of writing,
> > it detected the following:
> >
> > warning: same basename '88pm800.ko' if the following are built as modules:
> >   drivers/regulator/88pm800.ko
> >   drivers/mfd/88pm800.ko
> > warning: same basename 'adv7511.ko' if the following are built as modules:
> >   drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/adv7511/adv7511.ko
> >   drivers/media/i2c/adv7511.ko
> > warning: same basename 'asix.ko' if the following are built as modules:
> >   drivers/net/phy/asix.ko
> >   drivers/net/usb/asix.ko
> > warning: same basename 'coda.ko' if the following are built as modules:
> >   fs/coda/coda.ko
> >   drivers/media/platform/coda/coda.ko
> > warning: same basename 'realtek.ko' if the following are built as modules:
> >   drivers/net/phy/realtek.ko
> >   drivers/net/dsa/realtek.ko
> >
> > Reported-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
> > Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
> > ---
> >
> 
> > diff --git a/scripts/modules-check.sh b/scripts/modules-check.sh
> > new file mode 100755
> > index 000000000000..944e68bd22b0
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/scripts/modules-check.sh
> > @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
> > +#!/bin/sh
> > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > +
> > +# Warn if two or more modules have the same basename
> > +check_same_name_modules()
> > +{
> > +       same_name_modules=$(cat modules.order modules.builtin | \
> > +                               xargs basename -a | sort | uniq -d)

While probably it'll never be a problem, just for robustness, I'd add "--"
to the end basename to terminate argument interpretation:

    xargs basename -a -- | sort | ...

> > +
> > +       for m in $same_name_modules
> > +       do
> > +               echo "warning: same basename '$m' if the following are built as modules:"
> > +               grep --no-filename -e /$m modules.order modules.builtin | \
> > +                                                       sed 's:^kernel/:  :'
> 
> 
> Self nit-picking:
> It might be better to send these messages to stderr instead of stdout.

Yeah, wrapping a ">&2" around the report would be good. With these fixes:

Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>

-- 
Kees Cook