linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v4 00/13] module: core code clean up

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: <20220206165452.ytpk4epltqr6pgyu@ava.usersys.com>
Date:   Sun, 6 Feb 2022 16:54:52 +0000
From:   Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...hat.com>
To:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
Cc:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Michal Suchanek <msuchanek@...e.de>,
        "cl@...ux.com" <cl@...ux.com>,
        "pmladek@...e.com" <pmladek@...e.com>,
        "mbenes@...e.cz" <mbenes@...e.cz>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "jeyu@...nel.org" <jeyu@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-modules@...r.kernel.org" <linux-modules@...r.kernel.org>,
        "live-patching@...r.kernel.org" <live-patching@...r.kernel.org>,
        "atomlin@...mlin.com" <atomlin@...mlin.com>,
        "ghalat@...hat.com" <ghalat@...hat.com>,
        "allen.lkml@...il.com" <allen.lkml@...il.com>,
        "void@...ifault.com" <void@...ifault.com>,
        "joe@...ches.com" <joe@...ches.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 00/13] module: core code clean up

On Thu 2022-02-03 18:01 +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> I have another comment: I think patch 5 should be dropped.

Fair enough.

> Having something behave based on a CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_SOMETHING item is 
> wrong. It is not because a plateform selects 
> CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_STRICT_MODULE_RWX that the module core should behave 
> differentely than with other platforms as far as the user has not 
> selected CONFIG_STRICT_MODULE_RWX.
> 
> And the topic here is wrong. It is a coincidence if making that stuff 
> depend on CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_STRICT_MODULE_RWX works. This is just because 
> the only architectures that do the module allocation without Exec flag 
> are architectures that have also selected 
> CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_STRICT_MODULE_RWX. But it should also work on other 
> architectures.
> 
> I don't know exactly what was the motivation for commit 93651f80dcb6 
> ("modules: fix compile error if don't have strict module rwx") at the 
> first place but it is just wrong and we should fix it.
> 
> module_enable_x() should work just fine regardless of 
> CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_STRICT_MODULE_RWX.

The above does make sense, to me.


Kind regards,

-- 
Aaron Tomlin