linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] 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: <b6d9c890-ad72-4295-9b9e-dfdba99583d2@suse.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2025 15:01:35 +0100
From: Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@...e.com>
To: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
Cc: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
 Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>, Daniel Gomez
 <da.gomez@...sung.com>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>,
 linux-modules@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] module: Don't fail module loading when setting
 ro_after_init section RO failed

On 1/4/25 08:39, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> Le 03/01/2025 à 17:13, Petr Pavlu a écrit :
>> On 12/5/24 20:46, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>> This series reworks module loading to avoid leaving the module in a
>>> stale state when protecting ro_after_init section fails.
>>>
>>> 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. This is what patch 2 does.
>>>
>>> Then patch 3 tries to go a bit further by testing the ability to write
>>> protect ro-after-init section prior to initialising the module.
>>
>> I've been holding off on applying this series to modules-next because
>> there was still some discussion on the previous RFC version [1], and
>> I wanted to give people more time to potentially comment.
>>
>> Mike Rapoport also recently posted a series with a patch [2] that
>> proposes restoring of large pages after fragmentation. Should the last
>> patch here be then dropped?
> 
> Indeed, if the large pages are restored when bringing back the 
> ro_after_init to RW, it defeats the purpose of patch 3.
> 
> So I agree, let's first apply patches 1 and 2 in order to fix the actual 
> bug then see how we can improve as a second step.

I've now queued the first two patches on modules-next.

-- 
Thanks,
Petr