linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] modules: fix compile error if don't have strict module rwx

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: <20190625192115.GA27913@linux-8ccs>
Date:   Tue, 25 Jun 2019 21:21:15 +0200
From:   Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>
To:     Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@...wei.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
        namit@...are.com, cj.chengjian@...wei.com, sfr@...b.auug.org.au,
        linux-next@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] modules: fix compile error if don't have strict module
 rwx

+++ Yang Yingliang [25/06/19 17:40 +0800]:
>If CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_STRICT_MODULE_RWX is not defined,
>we need stub for module_enable_nx() and module_enable_x().
>
>If CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_STRICT_MODULE_RWX is defined, but
>CONFIG_STRICT_MODULE_RWX is disabled, we need stub for
>module_enable_nx.
>
>Move frob_text() outside of the CONFIG_STRICT_MODULE_RWX,
>because it is needed anyway.

Maybe include a fixes tag?

Fixes: 2eef1399a866 ("modules: fix BUG when load module with rodata=n")

>Signed-off-by: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@...wei.com>
>---
> kernel/module.c | 13 +++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/kernel/module.c b/kernel/module.c
>index c3ae34c..cfff441 100644
>--- a/kernel/module.c
>+++ b/kernel/module.c
>@@ -1875,7 +1875,7 @@ static void mod_sysfs_teardown(struct module *mod)
> 	mod_sysfs_fini(mod);
> }
>
>-#ifdef CONFIG_STRICT_MODULE_RWX
>+#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_STRICT_MODULE_RWX

Could you please explain why you introduced a new
CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_STRICT_MODULE_RWX #ifdef block instead of just moving
frob_text() and module_enable_x() outside of CONFIG_STRICT_MODULE_RWX?

I do not have anything against it, although the nested #ifdef's are a
bit painful to read. But I could not find a better way to do it :/
It's awkward because we need module_enable_x() and frob_text()
regardless of of CONFIG_STRICT_MODULE_RWX for x86, but other arches
don't need to call module_enable_x(), they usually just call the empty stub.

But I think having the CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_STRICT_MODULE_RWX block is OK,
for the reason of limiting the scope of the calls rather than
blanketly calling frob_text() andd module_enable_x() for arches that
don't need to call them. Was that your reasoning as well?

Thanks,

Jessica


> /*
>  * LKM RO/NX protection: protect module's text/ro-data
>  * from modification and any data from execution.
>@@ -1898,6 +1898,7 @@ static void frob_text(const struct module_layout *layout,
> 		   layout->text_size >> PAGE_SHIFT);
> }
>
>+#ifdef CONFIG_STRICT_MODULE_RWX
> static void frob_rodata(const struct module_layout *layout,
> 			int (*set_memory)(unsigned long start, int num_pages))
> {
>@@ -2010,15 +2011,19 @@ void set_all_modules_text_ro(void)
> 	}
> 	mutex_unlock(&module_mutex);
> }
>-#else
>+#else /* !CONFIG_STRICT_MODULE_RWX */
> static void module_enable_nx(const struct module *mod) { }
>-#endif
>-
>+#endif /*  CONFIG_STRICT_MODULE_RWX */
> static void module_enable_x(const struct module *mod)
> {
> 	frob_text(&mod->core_layout, set_memory_x);
> 	frob_text(&mod->init_layout, set_memory_x);
> }
>+#else /* !CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_STRICT_MODULE_RWX */
>+static void module_enable_nx(const struct module *mod) { }
>+static void module_enable_x(const struct module *mod) { }
>+#endif /* CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_STRICT_MODULE_RWX */
>+
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_LIVEPATCH
> /*
>-- 
>1.8.3
>