linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] x86/ftrace: Use 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: <20191015141111.GP2359@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 15 Oct 2019 16:11:11 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mhiramat@...nel.org,
        bristot@...hat.com, jbaron@...mai.com,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        mingo@...nel.org, namit@...are.com, hpa@...or.com, luto@...nel.org,
        ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org, jpoimboe@...hat.com, mbenes@...e.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] x86/ftrace: Use text_poke()

On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 03:56:34PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 03:07:40PM +0200, Jessica Yu wrote:

> > > Once this ftrace thing is sorted, we'll change x86 to _refuse_ to make
> > > executable (kernel) memory writable.
> > 
> > Not sure if relevant, but just thought I'd clarify: IIRC,
> > klp_module_coming() is not poking the coming module, but it calls
> > module_enable_ro() on itself (the livepatch module) so it can apply
> > relocations and such on the new code, which lives inside the livepatch
> > module, and it needs to possibly do this numerous times over the
> > lifetime of the patch module for any coming module it is responsible
> > for patching (i.e., call module_enable_ro() on the patch module, not
> > necessarily the coming module). So I am not be sure why
> > klp_module_coming() should be moved before complete_formation(). I
> > hope I'm remembering the details correctly, livepatch folks feel free
> > to chime in if I'm incorrect here.
> 
> You mean it does module_disable_ro() ? That would be broken and it needs
> to be fixed. Can some livepatch person explain what it does and why?

mbenes confirmed; what would be needed is for the live-patch module to
have all module dependent parts to be in their own section and have the
sections be page-aligned. Then we can do the protection on sections
instead of on the whole module.

Damn, and I thought I was so close to getting W^X sorted :/