linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 14/15] kprobes: remove dependency on CONFIG

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: <ZiNv0jY7Ebw75iQl@kernel.org>
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 10:33:38 +0300
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
To: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu@...il.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@...osinc.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Björn Töpel <bjorn@...nel.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@...nel.org>,
	Donald Dutile <ddutile@...hat.com>,
	Eric Chanudet <echanude@...hat.com>,
	Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>, Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
	Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
	Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>,
	Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
	Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
	Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@...il.com>,
	Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
	Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
	"bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-mips@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"linux-modules@...r.kernel.org" <linux-modules@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-s390@...r.kernel.org" <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	"loongarch@...ts.linux.dev" <loongarch@...ts.linux.dev>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"sparclinux@...r.kernel.org" <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>,
	"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 14/15] kprobes: remove dependency on CONFIG_MODULES

On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 03:59:40PM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> 
> 
> Le 19/04/2024 à 17:49, Mike Rapoport a écrit :
> > Hi Masami,
> > 
> > On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 06:16:15AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> >> Hi Mike,
> >>
> >> On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 19:00:50 +0300
> >> Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> From: "Mike Rapoport (IBM)" <rppt@...nel.org>
> >>>
> >>> kprobes depended on CONFIG_MODULES because it has to allocate memory for
> >>> code.
> >>>
> >>> Since code allocations are now implemented with execmem, kprobes can be
> >>> enabled in non-modular kernels.
> >>>
> >>> Add #ifdef CONFIG_MODULE guards for the code dealing with kprobes inside
> >>> modules, make CONFIG_KPROBES select CONFIG_EXECMEM and drop the
> >>> dependency of CONFIG_KPROBES on CONFIG_MODULES.
> >>
> >> Thanks for this work, but this conflicts with the latest fix in v6.9-rc4.
> >> Also, can you use IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MODULES) instead of #ifdefs in
> >> function body? We have enough dummy functions for that, so it should
> >> not make a problem.
> > 
> > The code in check_kprobe_address_safe() that gets the module and checks for
> > __init functions does not compile with IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MODULES).
> > I can pull it out to a helper or leave #ifdef in the function body,
> > whichever you prefer.
> 
> As far as I can see, the only problem is MODULE_STATE_COMING.
> Can we move 'enum module_state' out of #ifdef CONFIG_MODULES in module.h  ?

There's dereference of 'struct module' there:
 
		(*probed_mod)->state != MODULE_STATE_COMING) {
			...
		}

so moving out 'enum module_state' won't be enough.
 
> >   
> >> -- 
> >> Masami Hiramatsu
> > 

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.