linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH v2] modules: wait do_free

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

Message-ID: <ZbkFz25DtYuhkIEj@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 06:21:03 -0800
From: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To: Changbin Du <changbin.du@...wei.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-modules@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Xiaoyi Su <suxiaoyi@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v2] modules: wait do_free_init correctly

On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 09:40:38AM +0800, Changbin Du wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 09:53:58AM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 10:03:04AM +0800, Changbin Du wrote:
> > > The commit 1a7b7d922081 ("modules: Use vmalloc special flag") moves
> > > do_free_init() into a global workqueue instead of call_rcu(). So now
> > > rcu_barrier() can not ensure that do_free_init has completed. We should
> > > wait it via flush_work().
> > > 
> > > Without this fix, we still could encounter false positive reports in
> > > W+X checking, and rcu synchronization is unnecessary.
> > 
> > You didn't answer my question, which should be documented in the commit log.
> > 
> > Does this mean we never freed modules init because of this? If so then
> > your commit log should clearly explain that. It should also explain that
> > if true (you have to verify) then it means we were no longer saving
> > the memory we wished to save, and that is important for distributions
> > which do want to save anything on memory. You may want to do a general
> > estimate on how much that means these days on any desktop / server.
>
> Actually, I have explained it in commit msg. It's not about saving memory. The
> synchronization here is just to ensure the module init's been freed before
> doing W+X checking. The problem is that the current implementation is wrong,
> rcu_barrier() cannot guarantee that. So we can encounter false positive reports.
> But anyway, the module init will be freed, and it's just a timing related issue.

Your desciption here is better than the commit log.

  Luis