On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 09:52:41AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > (2015/03/04 22:17), Petr Mladek wrote: > > On Tue 2015-03-03 17:02:22, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > >> It's possible for klp_register_patch() to see a module before the COMING > >> notifier is called, or after the GOING notifier is called. > >> > >> That can cause all kinds of ugly races. As Pter Mladek reported: > >> > >> "The problem is that we do not keep the klp_mutex lock all the time when > >> the module is being added or removed. > >> > >> First, the module is visible even before ftrace is ready. If we enable a > >> patch > >> in this time frame, adding ftrace ops will fail and the patch will get > >> rejected > >> just because bad timing. > > > > Ah, this is not true after all. I did not properly check when > > MODULE_STATE_COMING was set. I though that it was before ftrace was > > initialized but it was not true. > > > > > >> Second, if we are "lucky" and enable the patch for the coming module > >> when the > >> ftrace is ready but before the module notifier has been called. The > >> notifier > >> will try to enable the patch as well. It will detect that it is already > >> patched, > >> return error, and the module will get rejected just because bad > >> timing. The more serious problem is that it will not call the notifier > >> for > >> going module, so that the mess will stay there and we wont be able to > >> load > >> the module later. > > > > Ah, the race is there but the effect is not that serious in the > > end. It seems that errors from module notifiers are ignored. In fact, > > we do not propagate the error from klp_module_notify_coming(). It means > > that WARN() from klp_enable_object() will be printed but the module > > will be loaded and patched. > > > > I am sorry, I was confused by kGraft where kgr_module_init() was > > called directly from module_load(). The errors were propagated. It > > means that kGraft rejects module when the patch cannot be applied. > > > > Note that the current solution is perfectly fine for the simple > > consistency model. > > > > > >> Third, similar problems are there for going module. If a patch is > >> enabled after > >> the notifier finishes but before the module is removed from the list of > >> modules, > >> the new patch will be applied to the module. The module might disappear > >> at > >> anytime when the patch enabling is in progress, so there might be an > >> access out > >> of memory. Or the whole patch might be applied and some mess will be > >> left, > >> so it will not be possible to load/patch the module again." > > > > This is true. > > No, that's not true if you try_get_module() before patching. After the > module state goes GOING (more correctly say, after try_release_module_ref() > succeeded), all try_get_module() must fail :) > So, please make sure to get module when applying patches.
Hi Masami, As Jikos pointed out elsewhere, try_get_module() won't solve all the GOING races. The module can be in GOING before mod->exit() is called. If we apply a patch between GOING getting set and mod->exit(), try_module_get() will fail and the module won't be patched. But module code can still run before or during mod->exit(), so the unpatched module code might interact badly with new patched code elsewhere. -- Josh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
