lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jun]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 11/15] static_call: Add inline static call infrastructure
Date
> On Jun 7, 2019, at 1:37 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 10:24:17PM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote:
>
>>> +static void static_call_del_module(struct module *mod)
>>> +{
>>> + struct static_call_site *start = mod->static_call_sites;
>>> + struct static_call_site *stop = mod->static_call_sites +
>>> + mod->num_static_call_sites;
>>> + struct static_call_site *site;
>>> + struct static_call_key *key, *prev_key = NULL;
>>> + struct static_call_mod *site_mod;
>>> +
>>> + for (site = start; site < stop; site++) {
>>> + key = static_call_key(site);
>>> + if (key == prev_key)
>>> + continue;
>>> + prev_key = key;
>>> +
>>> + list_for_each_entry(site_mod, &key->site_mods, list) {
>>> + if (site_mod->mod == mod) {
>>> + list_del(&site_mod->list);
>>> + kfree(site_mod);
>>> + break;
>>> + }
>>> + }
>>> + }
>>
>> I think that for safety, when a module is removed, all the static-calls
>> should be traversed to check that none of them calls any function in the
>> removed module. If that happens, perhaps it should be poisoned.
>
> We don't do that for normal indirect calls either.. I suppose we could
> here, but meh.
>
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static int static_call_module_notify(struct notifier_block *nb,
>>> + unsigned long val, void *data)
>>> +{
>>> + struct module *mod = data;
>>> + int ret = 0;
>>> +
>>> + cpus_read_lock();
>>> + static_call_lock();
>>> +
>>> + switch (val) {
>>> + case MODULE_STATE_COMING:
>>> + module_disable_ro(mod);
>>> + ret = static_call_add_module(mod);
>>> + module_enable_ro(mod, false);
>>
>> Doesn’t it cause some pages to be W+X ? Can it be avoided?
>
> I don't know why it does this, jump_labels doesn't seem to need this,
> and I'm not seeing what static_call needs differently.
>
>>> + if (ret) {
>>> + WARN(1, "Failed to allocate memory for static calls");
>>> + static_call_del_module(mod);
>>
>> If static_call_add_module() succeeded in changing some of the calls, but not
>> all, I don’t think that static_call_del_module() will correctly undo
>> static_call_add_module(). The code transformations, I think, will remain.
>
> Hurm, jump_labels has the same problem.
>
> I wonder why kernel/module.c:prepare_coming_module() doesn't propagate
> the error from the notifier call. If it were to do that, I think we'll
> abort the module load and any modifications get lost anyway.

This might be a security problem, since it can leave indirect branches,
which are susceptible to Spectre v2, in the code.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-06-07 18:36    [W:0.115 / U:15.912 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site