linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] arm64: modules: Reject loading of malformed modules

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: <CAMj1kXGe=HR7EvMs8D=7Uvr4Vhr7fXp56YQ9A10xdF1V1M71zw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2025 15:17:29 +0200
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To: Adrian Barnaś <abarnas@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, 
	Dylan Hatch <dylanbhatch@...gle.com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] arm64: modules: Reject loading of malformed modules

Hello Adrian,

On Fri, 19 Sept 2025 at 14:23, Adrian Barnaś <abarnas@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Here are a couple of patches to reject the loading of malformed modules
> on arm64 when the SCS patching is only partially applied or we detect
> an alternative callback function used in the module text.
>
> The SCS issue is largely theoretical. The code currently performs
> a "dry-run" (which we remove), and leave module code as-is if failed.
> However the latter issue was reported to crash the kernel at [1].
>

Why are you fixing this largely theoretical issue along with the
callback alternatives patching? The referenced thread only talks about
the latter, right?