linux-kernel - Re: [kpsingh:static_calls] [security] 9e15595ed0: Kernel_panic-not_syncing:lsm_static_call_init-Ran_out_of_static

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

Message-Id: <A9568514-FCB3-4715-9794-696383B2B7E8@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 17:47:43 +0200
From: KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>
To: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
 Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
 Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
 Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
 Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
 kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
 lkp@...el.com,
 oe-lkp@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [kpsingh:static_calls] [security] 9e15595ed0:
 Kernel_panic-not_syncing:lsm_static_call_init-Ran_out_of_static_slots



> On 15 Apr 2024, at 17:34, KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 at 16:23, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 9:21 AM Tetsuo Handa
> <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp> wrote:
> > On 2024/04/15 17:26, KP Singh wrote:
> > > This seems like an odd config which does not enable STATIC_CALL, I am going to
> > > make CONFIG_SECURITY depend on CONFIG_STATIC_CALL and make the dependency explicit.
> >
> > If CONFIG_SECURITY depends on CONFIG_STATIC_CALL, architectures which do not
> > support CONFIG_STATIC_CALL can no longer use LSM ? That sounds a bad dependency.
> 
> Agreed.  If the arch doesn't support static calls we need a fallback
> solution for the LSM that is no worse than what we have now, and
> preferably would still solve the issue of the BPF hooks active even
> where this is no BPF program attached.

Actually I take it back, when CONFIG_STATIC_CALL is not available, the implementation falls back to an indirect call. This crash is unrelated, I will debug further and post back.

- KP

> 
> -- 
> paul-moore.com