On Thu 2022-09-01 10:12:52, Song Liu wrote:
> From: Miroslav Benes <mbe...@suse.cz>
>
> Josh reported a bug:
>
> When the object to be patched is a module, and that module is
> rmmod'ed and reloaded, it fails to load with:
>
> module: x86/modules: Skipping invalid relocation target, existing value is
> nonzero for type 2, loc 00000000ba0302e9, val ffffffffa03e293c
> livepatch: failed to initialize patch 'livepatch_nfsd' for module 'nfsd'
> (-8)
> livepatch: patch 'livepatch_nfsd' failed for module 'nfsd', refusing to
> load module 'nfsd'
>
> The livepatch module has a relocation which references a symbol
> in the _previous_ loading of nfsd. When apply_relocate_add()
> tries to replace the old relocation with a new one, it sees that
> the previous one is nonzero and it errors out.
>
> We thus decided to reverse the relocation patching (clear all relocation
> targets on x86_64). The solution is not
> universal and is too much arch-specific, but it may prove to be simpler
> in the end.
>
> arch/powerpc/kernel/module_32.c | 10 ++++
> arch/powerpc/kernel/module_64.c | 49 +++++++++++++++
> arch/s390/kernel/module.c | 8 +++
> arch/x86/kernel/module.c | 102 +++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> include/linux/moduleloader.h | 7 +++
> kernel/livepatch/core.c | 41 ++++++++++++-
First, thanks a lot for working on this.
I can't check or test the powerpc and s390 code easily.
I am going to comment only x86 and generic code. It looks good
but it needs some changes to improve maintainability.
> 6 files changed, 189 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/module_32.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/module_32.c
> index ea6536171778..e3c312770453 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/module_32.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/module_32.c
> @@ -285,6 +285,16 @@ int apply_relocate_add(Elf32_Shdr *sechdrs,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_LIVEPATCH
> +void clear_relocate_add(Elf32_Shdr *sechdrs,
> + const char *strtab,
> + unsigned int symindex,
> + unsigned int relsec,
> + struct module *me)
> +{
> +}
> +#endif
> +
> #ifdef CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE
> notrace int module_trampoline_target(struct module *mod, unsigned long addr,
> unsigned long *target)
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/module_64.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/module_64.c
> index 7e45dc98df8a..514951f97391 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/module_64.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/module_64.c
> @@ -739,6 +739,55 @@ int apply_relocate_add(Elf64_Shdr *sechdrs,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_LIVEPATCH
> +void clear_relocate_add(Elf64_Shdr *sechdrs,
> + const char *strtab,
> + unsigned int symindex,
> + unsigned int relsec,
> + struct module *me)
> +{
> + unsigned int i;
> + Elf64_Rela *rela = (void *)sechdrs[relsec].sh_addr;
> + Elf64_Sym *sym;
> + unsigned long *location;
> + const char *symname;
> + u32 *instruction;
> +
> + pr_debug("Clearing ADD relocate section %u to %u\n", relsec,
> + sechdrs[relsec].sh_info);
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < sechdrs[relsec].sh_size / sizeof(*rela); i++) {
> + location = (void *)sechdrs[sechdrs[relsec].sh_info].sh_addr
> + + rela[i].r_offset;
> + sym = (Elf64_Sym *)sechdrs[symindex].sh_addr
> + + ELF64_R_SYM(rela[i].r_info);
> + symname = me->core_kallsyms.strtab
> + + sym->st_name;
> +
> + if (ELF64_R_TYPE(rela[i].r_info) != R_PPC_REL24)
> + continue;
> + /*
> + * reverse the operations in apply_relocate_add() for case
> + * R_PPC_REL24.
> + */
> + if (sym->st_shndx != SHN_UNDEF &&
> + sym->st_shndx != SHN_LIVEPATCH)
> + continue;
> +
> + instruction = (u32 *)location;
> + if (is_mprofile_ftrace_call(symname))
> + continue;
> +
> + if (!instr_is_relative_link_branch(ppc_inst(*instruction)))
> + continue;
> +
> + instruction += 1;
> + patch_instruction(instruction, ppc_inst(PPC_RAW_NOP()));
> + }
> +
> +}
This looks like a lot of duplicated code. Isn't it?
> +#endif
> +
> #ifdef CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE
> int module_trampoline_target(struct module *mod, unsigned long addr,
> unsigned long *target)
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/module.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/module.c
> @@ -128,18 +128,20 @@ int apply_relocate(Elf32_Shdr *sechdrs,
> return 0;
> }
> #else /*X86_64*/
> -static int __apply_relocate_add(Elf64_Shdr *sechdrs,
> +static int __apply_clear_relocate_add(Elf64_Shdr *sechdrs,
Nit: Honestly, the combination of 4 verbs: "apply", "clear, "relocate", and
"add"
is really crazy. It is far from obvious what the function does.
The name was not ideal even before. Let's not make it worse and
use on 3 verbs again.
What about __update_relocate_add or __write_relocate_add()?
Note that the "__" prefix is still needed, see below.
> const char *strtab,
> unsigned int symindex,
> unsigned int relsec,
> struct module *me,
> - void *(*write)(void *dest, const void *src, size_t len))
> + void *(*write)(void *dest, const void *src, size_t len),
> + bool clear)
> {
> unsigned int i;
> Elf64_Rela *rel = (void *)sechdrs[relsec].sh_addr;
> Elf64_Sym *sym;
> void *loc;
> u64 val;
> + u64 zero = 0ULL;
>
> DEBUGP("Applying relocate section %u to %u\n",
> relsec, sechdrs[relsec].sh_info);
> @@ -163,40 +165,60 @@ static int __apply_relocate_add(Elf64_Shdr *sechdrs,
> case R_X86_64_NONE:
> break;
> case R_X86_64_64:
> - if (*(u64 *)loc != 0)
> - goto invalid_relocation;
> - write(loc, &val, 8);
> + if (!clear) {
Nit: I would prefer to use positive check when both if/else branches
are used. I would call the parameter "apply".
> + if (*(u64 *)loc != 0)
> + goto invalid_relocation;
> + write(loc, &val, 8);
> + } else {
> + write(loc, &zero, 8);
> + }
> break;
> case R_X86_64_32:
> - if (*(u32 *)loc != 0)
> - goto invalid_relocation;
> - write(loc, &val, 4);
> - if (val != *(u32 *)loc)
> - goto overflow;
> + if (!clear) {
> + if (*(u32 *)loc != 0)
> + goto invalid_relocation;
> + write(loc, &val, 4);
> + if (val != *(u32 *)loc)
> + goto overflow;
> + } else {
> + write(loc, &zero, 4);
> + }
> break;
> case R_X86_64_32S:
> - if (*(s32 *)loc != 0)
> - goto invalid_relocation;
> - write(loc, &val, 4);
> - if ((s64)val != *(s32 *)loc)
> - goto overflow;
> + if (!clear) {
> + if (*(s32 *)loc != 0)
> + goto invalid_relocation;
> + write(loc, &val, 4);
> + if ((s64)val != *(s32 *)loc)
> + goto overflow;
> + } else {
> + write(loc, &zero, 4);
> + }
> break;
> case R_X86_64_PC32:
> case R_X86_64_PLT32:
> - if (*(u32 *)loc != 0)
> - goto invalid_relocation;
> - val -= (u64)loc;
> - write(loc, &val, 4);
> + if (!clear) {
> + if (*(u32 *)loc != 0)
> + goto invalid_relocation;
> + val -= (u64)loc;
> + write(loc, &val, 4);
> #if 0
> - if ((s64)val != *(s32 *)loc)
> - goto overflow;
> + if ((s64)val != *(s32 *)loc)
> + goto overflow;
> #endif
> + } else {
> + write(loc, &zero, 4);
> + }
> break;
> case R_X86_64_PC64:
> - if (*(u64 *)loc != 0)
> - goto invalid_relocation;
> - val -= (u64)loc;
> - write(loc, &val, 8);
> + if (!clear) {
> + if (*(u64 *)loc != 0)
> + goto invalid_relocation;
> + val -= (u64)loc;
> + write(loc, &val, 8);
> + } else {
> + write(loc, &zero, 8);
> + }
> break;
> default:
> pr_err("%s: Unknown rela relocation: %llu\n",
> @@ -245,6 +267,32 @@ int apply_relocate_add(Elf64_Shdr *sechdrs,
> return ret;
> }
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_LIVEPATCH
> +
> +void clear_relocate_add(Elf64_Shdr *sechdrs,
> + const char *strtab,
> + unsigned int symindex,
> + unsigned int relsec,
> + struct module *me)
> +{
> + bool early = me->state == MODULE_STATE_UNFORMED;
> + void *(*write)(void *, const void *, size_t) = memcpy;
> +
> + if (!early) {
> + write = text_poke;
> + mutex_lock(&text_mutex);
> + }
> +
> + __apply_clear_relocate_add(sechdrs, strtab, symindex, relsec, me,
> + write, true /* clear */);
> +
> + if (!early) {
> + text_poke_sync();
> + mutex_unlock(&text_mutex);
> + }
> +}
This duplicates a lot of code. Please, rename apply_relocate_add() the
same way as __apply_clear_relocate_add() and add the "apply" parameter.
Then add the wrappers for this:
int write_relocate_add(Elf64_Shdr *sechdrs,
const char *strtab,
unsigned int symindex,
unsigned int relsec,
struct module *me,
bool apply)
{
int ret;
bool early = me->state == MODULE_STATE_UNFORMED;
void *(*write)(void *, const void *, size_t) = memcpy;
if (!early) {
write = text_poke;
mutex_lock(&text_mutex);
}
ret = __write_relocate_add(sechdrs, strtab, symindex, relsec, me,
write, apply);
if (!early) {
text_poke_sync();
mutex_unlock(&text_mutex);
}
return ret;
}
int apply_relocate_add(Elf64_Shdr *sechdrs,
const char *strtab,
unsigned int symindex,
unsigned int relsec,
struct module *me)
{
return write_relocate_add(sechdrs, strtab, symindex, relsec, me, true);
}
#ifdef CONFIG_LIVEPATCH
void apply_relocate_add(Elf64_Shdr *sechdrs,
const char *strtab,
unsigned int symindex,
unsigned int relsec,
struct module *me)
{
write_relocate_add(sechdrs, strtab, symindex, relsec, me, false);
}
#endif
> +#endif
> +
> #endif
>
> int module_finalize(const Elf_Ehdr *hdr,
> --- a/kernel/livepatch/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/livepatch/core.c
> @@ -316,6 +316,45 @@ int klp_apply_section_relocs(struct module *pmod,
> Elf_Shdr *sechdrs,
> return apply_relocate_add(sechdrs, strtab, symndx, secndx, pmod);
> }
>
> +static void klp_clear_object_relocations(struct module *pmod,
> + struct klp_object *obj)
> +{
> + int i, cnt;
> + const char *objname, *secname;
> + char sec_objname[MODULE_NAME_LEN];
> + Elf_Shdr *sec;
> +
> + objname = klp_is_module(obj) ? obj->name : "vmlinux";
> +
> + /* For each klp relocation section */
> + for (i = 1; i < pmod->klp_info->hdr.e_shnum; i++) {
> + sec = pmod->klp_info->sechdrs + i;
> + secname = pmod->klp_info->secstrings + sec->sh_name;
> + if (!(sec->sh_flags & SHF_RELA_LIVEPATCH))
> + continue;
> +
> + /*
> + * Format: .klp.rela.sec_objname.section_name
> + * See comment in klp_resolve_symbols() for an explanation
> + * of the selected field width value.
> + */
> + secname = pmod->klp_info->secstrings + sec->sh_name;
> + cnt = sscanf(secname, ".klp.rela.%55[^.]", sec_objname);
> + if (cnt != 1) {
> + pr_err("section %s has an incorrectly formatted name\n",
> + secname);
> + continue;
> + }
> +
> + if (strcmp(objname, sec_objname))
> + continue;
> +
> + clear_relocate_add(pmod->klp_info->sechdrs,
> + pmod->core_kallsyms.strtab,
> + pmod->klp_info->symndx, i, pmod);
> + }
> +}
Huh, this duplicates a lot of tricky code.
It is even worse because this squashed code from two functions
klp_apply_section_relocs() and klp_apply_object_relocs()
into a single function. As a result, the code duplication is not
even obvious.
Also the suffix "_reloacations() does not match the suffix of
the related funciton:
+ klp_apply_object_relocs() (existing)
+ klp_clear_object_relocations() (new)
This all would complicate maintenance of the code.
Please, implement a common:
int klp_write_section_relocs(struct module *pmod, Elf_Shdr *sechdrs,
const char *shstrtab, const char *strtab,
unsigned int symndx, unsigned int secndx,
const char *objname, bool apply);
and
int klp_write_object_relocs(struct klp_patch *patch,
struct klp_object *obj,
bool apply);
and add the respective wrappers:
int klp_apply_section_relocs(); /* also needed in module/main.c */
int klp_apply_object_relocs();
void klp_clear_object_relocs();
Best Regards,
Petr
