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 17:57:50 +0900
From:   Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.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>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        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 5:14 PM Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 10:08:12AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 9:39 AM 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>
> >
> > That looks great!
> >
> > > ---
> > >
> > >  [Alternative fix ? ]
> > >
> > > I do not know about the user experience of modprobe etc.
> > > when two different modules have the same name.
> > > It does not matter if this is correctly handled by modules.order?
> > >
> > > If this is just a problem of the build system, it is pretty easy to fix.
> > > For example, if we prepend the directory path, parallel build will
> > > never write to the same file simultanously.
> > >
> > >   asix.mod -> drivers/net/phy/asix.mod
> > >   asix.mod -> drivers/net/usb/asix.mod
> >
> > non-unique module names cause all kinds of problems, and
> > modprobe can certainly not handle them correctly, and there
> > are issues with symbols exported from a module when another
> > one has the same name.
>
> /sys/modules/ will fall over when this happens as well.  I thought we
> had the "rule" that module names had to be unique, I guess it was only a
> matter of time before they started colliding :(
>
> So warning is good, but forbidding this is better, as things will break.
>
> Or we need to fix up the places where things will break.


If we intentionally break the build,
we need to send fix-up patches to subsystems first.



-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada