linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] zram: fix crashes due to use of cpu hotplug multistate

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: <20210406155423.t7dagp24bupudv3p@treble>
Date:   Tue, 6 Apr 2021 10:54:23 -0500
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:     Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>, mbenes@...e.com,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>, keescook@...omium.org,
        dhowells@...hat.com, hch@...radead.org, ngupta@...are.org,
        sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com, axboe@...nel.dk,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        live-patching@...r.kernel.org, Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] zram: fix crashes due to use of cpu hotplug
 multistate

On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 02:00:19PM +0200, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> > > Driver developers will simply have to open code these protections. In
> > > light of what I see on LTP / fuzzing, I suspect the use case will grow
> > > and we'll have to revisit this in the future. But for now, sure, we can
> > > just open code the required protections everywhere to not crash on module
> > > removal.
> > 
> > LTP and fuzzing too do not remove modules.  So I do not understand the
> > root problem here, that's just something that does not happen on a real
> > system.
> 
> If I am not mistaken, the issue that Luis tries to solve here was indeed 
> found by running LTP.
> 
> > On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 08:13:23AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 06:30:16PM +0000, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 09:54:12AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > No, please no.  Module removal is a "best effort",
> > > > 
> > > > Not for live patching. I am not sure if I am missing any other valid
> > > > use case?
> > > 
> > > live patching removes modules?  We have so many code paths that are
> > > "best effort" when it comes to module unloading, trying to resolve this
> > > one is a valiant try, but not realistic.
> > 
> > Miroslav, your input / help here would be valuable. I did the
> > generalization work because you said it would be worthy for you too...
> 
> Yes, we have the option to revert and remove the existing live patch from 
> the system. I am not sure how (if) it is used in practice.
> 
> At least at SUSE we do not support the option. But we are only one of the 
> many downstream users. So yes, there is the option.

Same for Red Hat.  Unloading livepatch modules seems to work fine, but
isn't officially supported.

That said, if rmmod is just considered a development aid, and we're
going to be ignoring bugs, we should make it official with a new
TAINT_RMMOD.

-- 
Josh