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-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <11DA2A00-28F4-44F8-BBA7-012400FE1050@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 23:39:08 +0200
From: KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>
To: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Cc: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
 Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
 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 22:54, Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com> wrote:
> 
> On 4/15/2024 1:42 PM, KP Singh wrote:
>> 
>>> On 15 Apr 2024, at 17:47, KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>>>> <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.
>> Apparently, when I smoke tested, I had CONFIG_IMA disabled so did not hit the bug. Well, now IMA is an LSM, so the following fixes it:
> 
> You'll want CONFIG_EVM as well, I bet.

Indeed, thanks Casey!