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: <5467e66d-55de-ca8f-c1ae-ffe6efe7290d@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 14 Nov 2022 16:45:05 +0100
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc:     Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>, pmladek@...e.com,
        Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@...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 14.11.22 16:38, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 09:57:56AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 12.11.22 02:47, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 02:00:55PM +0200, Petr Pavlu wrote:
>>>> On 10/18/22 20:33, 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.
>>>>
>>>> Simpler could be to do the following:
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/kernel/module/main.c b/kernel/module/main.c
>>>> index d02d39c7174e..0302ac387e93 100644
>>>> --- a/kernel/module/main.c
>>>> +++ b/kernel/module/main.c
>>>> @@ -2386,7 +2386,8 @@ static bool finished_loading(const char *name)
>>>>    	sched_annotate_sleep();
>>>>    	mutex_lock(&module_mutex);
>>>>    	mod = find_module_all(name, strlen(name), true);
>>>> -	ret = !mod || mod->state == MODULE_STATE_LIVE;
>>>> +	ret = !mod || mod->state == MODULE_STATE_LIVE
>>>> +		|| mod->state == MODULE_STATE_GOING;
>>>>    	mutex_unlock(&module_mutex);
>>>>    	return ret;
>>>> @@ -2566,7 +2567,8 @@ static int add_unformed_module(struct module *mod)
>>>>    	mutex_lock(&module_mutex);
>>>>    	old = find_module_all(mod->name, strlen(mod->name), true);
>>>>    	if (old != NULL) {
>>>> -		if (old->state != MODULE_STATE_LIVE) {
>>>> +		if (old->state == MODULE_STATE_COMING
>>>> +		    || old->state == MODULE_STATE_UNFORMED) {
>>>>    			/* Wait in case it fails to load. */
>>>>    			mutex_unlock(&module_mutex);
>>>>    			err = wait_event_interruptible(module_wq,
>>>> @@ -2575,7 +2577,7 @@ static int add_unformed_module(struct module *mod)
>>>>    				goto out_unlocked;
>>>>    			goto again;
>>>>    		}
>>>> -		err = -EEXIST;
>>>> +		err = old->state != MODULE_STATE_LIVE ? -EBUSY : -EEXIST;
>>>>    		goto out;
>>>>    	}
>>>>    	mod_update_bounds(mod);
>>>
>>>
>>> Prarit, can you verify this still does not break the issue you reported?
>>> David, does this also fix your issue?
>>
>> I didn't try, but from a quick glimpse I assume no. Allocating module space
>> happens before handling eventual duplicates right now, before a module even
>> is "alive" and in the MODULE_STATE_UNFORMED state.
> 
> The first two hunks are a revert of commit 6e6de3dee51a and I'm under
> the impression that cauased your issues as *more* modules states are
> allowed through.
> 
> The last hunk tries to fix what 6e6de3dee51a wanted to do.
> 

Note that I don't think the issue I raised is due to 6e6de3dee51a.

>> But maybe I am missing something important.
> 
> Please do test if you can.

I don't have the machine at hand right now. But, again, I doubt this 
will fix it.


The flow is in load_module():

	mod = layout_and_allocate(info, flags);
	if (IS_ERR(mod)) {
		...
	}

	audit_log_kern_module(mod->name);

	/* Reserve our place in the list. */
	err = add_unformed_module(mod);
	if (err)
		goto free_module;


You can have 400 threads in layout_and_allocate() loading the same 
module at the same time and running out of module space. Any changes to 
add_unformed_module() and finished_loading() won't change that, because 
they are not involved before the module space allocations happened.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb