linux-kernel - Re: [REGRESSION] module BTF validation failure (Error -22) on next

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: <Z4fyijoUoeTnOuDM@pop-os.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 09:38:18 -0800
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@...cle.com>
Cc: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>, Laura Nao <laura.nao@...labora.com>,
	bpf@...r.kernel.org, chrome-platform@...ts.linux.dev,
	kernel@...labora.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	regressions@...ts.linux.dev,
	Stephen Brennan <stephen.s.brennan@...cle.com>,
	"dwarves@...r.kernel.org" <dwarves@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [REGRESSION] module BTF validation failure (Error -22) on next

On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 03:19:01PM +0000, Alan Maguire wrote:
> Seems like there's a few approaches we can take in fixing this:
> 
> 1. designate "__pcpu_" prefix as a variable prefix to filter out. This
> resolves the immediate problem but is too narrowly focused IMO and we
> may end up playing whack-a-mole with other dummy variable prefixes.
> 2. resurrect ELF section variable information fully; i.e. record a list
> of variables per ELF section (or at least per ELF section we care
> about). If variable is not on the list for the ELF section, do not
> encode it.
> 3. midway between the two; for the 0 address case specifically, verify
> that the variable name really _is_ in the associated ELF section. No
> need to create a local ELF table variable representation, we could just
> walk the table in the case of the 0 addresses.
> 
> Diff for approach 3 is as follows

Hi Alan,

Thanks for your detailed analysis.

Is your patch formally submitted and merged? A quick code search with
variable_in_sec() tells me no, but I could very easily miss things here,
hence I am asking you. :)