linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] module: Merge same-name module load requests

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: <9b6f8b9f-11bd-6850-0f73-3a4352181b97@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Oct 2022 15:19:51 -0400
From:   Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
To:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@...e.com>
Cc:     pmladek@...e.com, linux-modules@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] module: Merge same-name module load requests

On 10/18/22 14:33, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2022 at 11:27:10AM +0200, Petr Pavlu wrote:
>> The patch does address a regression observed after commit 6e6de3dee51a
>> ("kernel/module.c: Only return -EEXIST for modules that have finished
>> loading"). I guess it can have a Fixes tag added to the patch.
>>
>> I think it is hard to split this patch into parts because the implemented
>> "optimization" is the fix.
> 
> git describe --contains 6e6de3dee51a
> v5.3-rc1~38^2~6
> 
> I'm a bit torn about this situation. Reverting 6e6de3dee51a would be the
> right thing to do, but without it, it still leaves the issue reported
> by Prarit Bhargava. We need a way to resolve the issue on stable and
> then your optimizations can be applied on top.
> 
> Prarit Bhargava, please review Petry's work and see if you can come up
> with a sensible way to address this for stable.

Thanks for the heads up Luis.  I'll take a closer look.  [A long time 
ago] I could swear we made a very targeted decision to *NOT* allow 
modules with the same name to be loaded into the kernel.  What's changed 
that we think this is okay to do today?

Thanks,

P.

> 
>    Luis
>