linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] module: Don't fail module loading when setting ro_after

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: <D5HZV4A6SC9A.25U3Q0WUVDJHZ@samsung.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2024 23:17:18 +0100
From: Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@...sung.com>
To: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>, Luis Chamberlain
	<mcgrof@...nel.org>, Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@...e.com>, Sami Tolvanen
	<samitolvanen@...gle.com>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>,
	<linux-modules@...r.kernel.org>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] module: Don't fail module loading when setting
 ro_after_init section RO failed

On Sat Nov 9, 2024 at 11:35 AM CET, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> Once module init has succeded it is too late to cancel loading.
> If setting ro_after_init data section to read-only fails, all we
> can do is to inform the user through a warning.
>
> Reported-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230915082126.4187913-1-ruanjinjie@huawei.com/
> Fixes: d1909c022173 ("module: Don't ignore errors from set_memory_XX()")
> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
> ---
>  kernel/module/main.c | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/module/main.c b/kernel/module/main.c
> index 2de4ad7af335..1bf4b0db291b 100644
> --- a/kernel/module/main.c
> +++ b/kernel/module/main.c
> @@ -2583,7 +2583,9 @@ static noinline int do_init_module(struct module *mod)
>  #endif
>  	ret = module_enable_rodata_ro_after_init(mod);
>  	if (ret)
> -		goto fail_mutex_unlock;
> +		pr_warn("%s: %s() returned %d, ro_after_init data might still be writable\n",
> +			mod->name, __func__, ret);
> +
>  	mod_tree_remove_init(mod);
>  	module_arch_freeing_init(mod);
>  	for_class_mod_mem_type(type, init) {
> @@ -2622,8 +2624,6 @@ static noinline int do_init_module(struct module *mod)
>  
>  	return 0;

I think it would make sense to propagate the error. But that would
require changing modprobe.c. What kind of error can we expect when this
happens?

>  
> -fail_mutex_unlock:
> -	mutex_unlock(&module_mutex);
>  fail_free_freeinit:
>  	kfree(freeinit);
>  fail: