lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Mar]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Re: [PATCH 2/2] livepatch: fix patched module loading race
(2015/03/05 23:18), Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> 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.

Hmm, in that case, we'd better have new GONE state for the module.
At least kprobe needs it.

Thank you,

--
Masami HIRAMATSU
Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Research Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-03-06 02:41    [W:1.759 / U:0.172 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site