linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the livepatching tree with the modules tree

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 5 Jun 2020 09:37:17 +0200
From:   Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>
To:     Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the livepatching tree with the
 modules tree

+++ Jiri Kosina [05/06/20 08:56 +0200]:
>On Fri, 5 Jun 2020, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
>> > Today's linux-next merge of the livepatching tree got a conflict in:
>> >
>> >   kernel/module.c
>> >
>> > between commits:
>> >
>> >   db991af02f11 ("module: break nested ARCH_HAS_STRICT_MODULE_RWX and STRICT_MODULE_RWX #ifdefs")
>> >   5c3a7db0c7ec ("module: Harden STRICT_MODULE_RWX")
>> >
>> > from the modules tree and commit:
>> >
>> >   e6eff4376e28 ("module: Make module_enable_ro() static again")
>> >
>> > from the livepatching tree.
>> >
>> > diff --cc kernel/module.c
>> > index c69291362676,a26343ea4d50..000000000000
>> > --- a/kernel/module.c
>> > +++ b/kernel/module.c
>> > @@@ -2055,29 -2023,20 +2042,30 @@@ static void module_enable_nx(const stru
>> >   	frob_writable_data(&mod->init_layout, set_memory_nx);
>> >   }
>> >
>> >  +static int module_enforce_rwx_sections(Elf_Ehdr *hdr, Elf_Shdr *sechdrs,
>> >  +				       char *secstrings, struct module *mod)
>> >  +{
>> >  +	const unsigned long shf_wx = SHF_WRITE|SHF_EXECINSTR;
>> >  +	int i;
>> >  +
>> >  +	for (i = 0; i < hdr->e_shnum; i++) {
>> >  +		if ((sechdrs[i].sh_flags & shf_wx) == shf_wx)
>> >  +			return -ENOEXEC;
>> >  +	}
>> >  +
>> >  +	return 0;
>> >  +}
>> >  +
>> >   #else /* !CONFIG_STRICT_MODULE_RWX */
>> >  +/* module_{enable,disable}_ro() stubs are in module.h */
>> >   static void module_enable_nx(const struct module *mod) { }
>> > + static void module_enable_ro(const struct module *mod, bool after_init) {}
>> >  -#endif /*  CONFIG_STRICT_MODULE_RWX */
>> >  -static void module_enable_x(const struct module *mod)
>> >  +static int module_enforce_rwx_sections(Elf_Ehdr *hdr, Elf_Shdr *sechdrs,
>> >  +				       char *secstrings, struct module *mod)
>> >   {
>> >  -	frob_text(&mod->core_layout, set_memory_x);
>> >  -	frob_text(&mod->init_layout, set_memory_x);
>> >  +	return 0;
>> >   }
>> >  -#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 */
>> >  -
>> >  +#endif /*  CONFIG_STRICT_MODULE_RWX */
>> >
>> >   #ifdef CONFIG_LIVEPATCH
>> >   /*
>>
>> This is now a conflict between the modules tree and Linus' tree.
>
>I've made Linus aware of this coming when sending livepatching tree, but
>given the fact that the modules tree hasn't been merged yet, Jessica, I
>believe it'd make sense to point it out again once sending your tree.

Yep, will do. Thanks!