linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/7] s390/module: Use s390_kernel

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:   Thu, 16 Apr 2020 10:56:02 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
cc:     live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        heiko.carstens@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] s390/module: Use s390_kernel_write() for
 relocations

On Tue, 14 Apr 2020, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:

> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> 
> Instead of playing games with module_{dis,en}able_ro(), use existing
> text poking mechanisms to apply relocations after module loading.
> 
> So far only x86, s390 and Power have HAVE_LIVEPATCH but only the first
> two also have STRICT_MODULE_RWX.
> 
> This will allow removal of the last module_disable_ro() usage in
> livepatch.  The ultimate goal is to completely disallow making
> executable mappings writable.
> 
> [ jpoimboe: Split up patches. Use mod state to determine whether
> 	    memcpy() can be used. ]
> 
> Cc: linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
> Cc: heiko.carstens@...ibm.com
> Suggested-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
> ---
>  arch/s390/kernel/module.c | 106 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
>  1 file changed, 61 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/s390/kernel/module.c b/arch/s390/kernel/module.c
> index ba8f19bb438b..e85e378f876e 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/kernel/module.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/kernel/module.c
> @@ -174,7 +174,8 @@ int module_frob_arch_sections(Elf_Ehdr *hdr, Elf_Shdr *sechdrs,
>  }
>  
>  static int apply_rela_bits(Elf_Addr loc, Elf_Addr val,
> -			   int sign, int bits, int shift)
> +			   int sign, int bits, int shift,
> +			   void (*write)(void *dest, const void *src, size_t len))
>  {
>  	unsigned long umax;
>  	long min, max;
> @@ -194,26 +195,29 @@ static int apply_rela_bits(Elf_Addr loc, Elf_Addr val,
>  			return -ENOEXEC;
>  	}
>  
> -	if (bits == 8)
> -		*(unsigned char *) loc = val;
> -	else if (bits == 12)
> -		*(unsigned short *) loc = (val & 0xfff) |
> +	if (bits == 8) {
> +		write(loc, &val, 1);
> +	} else if (bits == 12) {
> +		unsigned short tmp = (val & 0xfff) |
>  			(*(unsigned short *) loc & 0xf000);
> -	else if (bits == 16)
> -		*(unsigned short *) loc = val;
> -	else if (bits == 20)
> -		*(unsigned int *) loc = (val & 0xfff) << 16 |
> -			(val & 0xff000) >> 4 |
> -			(*(unsigned int *) loc & 0xf00000ff);
> -	else if (bits == 32)
> -		*(unsigned int *) loc = val;
> -	else if (bits == 64)
> -		*(unsigned long *) loc = val;
> +		write(loc, &tmp, 2);
> +	} else if (bits == 16) {
> +		write(loc, &val, 2);
> +	} else if (bits == 20) {
> +		unsigned int tmp = (val & 0xfff) << 16 |
> +			(val & 0xff000) >> 4 | (*(unsigned int *) loc & 0xf00000ff);
> +		write(loc, &tmp, 4);
> +	} else if (bits == 32) {
> +		write(loc, &val, 4);
> +	} else if (bits == 64) {
> +		write(loc, &val, 8);
> +	}
>  	return 0;
>  }

The compiler complains about the above changes

arch/s390/kernel/module.c:199:9: warning: passing argument 1 of 'write' makes pointer from integer without a cast [-Wint-conversion]
   write(loc, &val, 1);
         ^~~
arch/s390/kernel/module.c:199:9: note: expected 'void *' but argument is of type 'Elf64_Addr' {aka 'long long unsigned int'}

[...]  

> -int apply_relocate_add(Elf_Shdr *sechdrs, const char *strtab,
> +static int __apply_relocate_add(Elf_Shdr *sechdrs, const char *strtab,
>  		       unsigned int symindex, unsigned int relsec,
> -		       struct module *me)
> +		       struct module *me,
> +		       void (*write)(void *dest, const void *src, size_t len))
>  {
>  	Elf_Addr base;
>  	Elf_Sym *symtab;

You also need to update apply_rela() call site in this function. It is 
missing write argument.

> @@ -437,6 +442,17 @@ int apply_relocate_add(Elf_Shdr *sechdrs, const char *strtab,
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +int apply_relocate_add(Elf_Shdr *sechdrs, const char *strtab,
> +		       unsigned int symindex, unsigned int relsec,
> +		       struct module *me)
> +{
> +	int ret;

ret is unused;

> +	bool early = me->state == MODULE_STATE_UNFORMED;
> +
> +	return __apply_relocate_add(sechdrs, strtab, symindex, relsec, me,
> +				    early ? memcpy : s390_kernel_write);

The compiler warns about

arch/s390/kernel/module.c: In function 'apply_relocate_add':
arch/s390/kernel/module.c:453:24: warning: pointer type mismatch in conditional expression
         early ? memcpy : s390_kernel_write);

Miroslav