Re: [PATCH] livepatch/module: make TAINT_LIVEPATCH module-specific

[Miroslav Benes]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2016, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:

> There's no reliable way to determine which module tainted the kernel
> with CONFIG_LIVEPATCH.  For example, /sys/module/<klp module>/taint
> doesn't report it.  Neither does the "mod -t" command in the crash tool.
> 
> Make it crystal clear who the guilty party is by converting
> CONFIG_LIVEPATCH to a module taint flag.
> 
> This changes the behavior a bit: now the the flag gets set when the
> module is loaded, rather than when it's enabled.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Chunyu Hu <chuhu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  kernel/livepatch/core.c |  3 ---
>  kernel/module.c         | 35 ++++++++++++-----------------------
>  2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/livepatch/core.c b/kernel/livepatch/core.c
> index 5fbabe0..af46438 100644
> --- a/kernel/livepatch/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/livepatch/core.c
> @@ -545,9 +545,6 @@ static int __klp_enable_patch(struct klp_patch *patch)
>  	    list_prev_entry(patch, list)->state == KLP_DISABLED)
>  		return -EBUSY;
>  
> -	pr_notice_once("tainting kernel with TAINT_LIVEPATCH\n");
> -	add_taint(TAINT_LIVEPATCH, LOCKDEP_STILL_OK);
> -
>  	pr_notice("enabling patch '%s'\n", patch->mod->name);
>  
>  	klp_for_each_object(patch, obj) {
> diff --git a/kernel/module.c b/kernel/module.c
> index 529efae..fd5f95b 100644
> --- a/kernel/module.c
> +++ b/kernel/module.c
> @@ -1149,6 +1149,8 @@ static size_t module_flags_taint(struct module *mod, char *buf)
>  		buf[l++] = 'C';
>  	if (mod->taints & (1 << TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE))
>  		buf[l++] = 'E';
> +	if (mod->taints & (1 << TAINT_LIVEPATCH))
> +		buf[l++] = 'K';
>  	/*
>  	 * TAINT_FORCED_RMMOD: could be added.
>  	 * TAINT_CPU_OUT_OF_SPEC, TAINT_MACHINE_CHECK, TAINT_BAD_PAGE don't
> @@ -2791,26 +2793,6 @@ static int copy_chunked_from_user(void *dst, const void __user *usrc, unsigned l
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> -#ifdef CONFIG_LIVEPATCH
> -static int find_livepatch_modinfo(struct module *mod, struct load_info *info)
> -{
> -	mod->klp = get_modinfo(info, "livepatch") ? true : false;
> -
> -	return 0;
> -}
> -#else /* !CONFIG_LIVEPATCH */
> -static int find_livepatch_modinfo(struct module *mod, struct load_info *info)
> -{
> -	if (get_modinfo(info, "livepatch")) {
> -		pr_err("%s: module is marked as livepatch module, but livepatch support is disabled",
> -		       mod->name);
> -		return -ENOEXEC;
> -	}
> -
> -	return 0;
> -}
> -#endif /* CONFIG_LIVEPATCH */
> -
>  /* Sets info->hdr and info->len. */
>  static int copy_module_from_user(const void __user *umod, unsigned long len,
>  				  struct load_info *info)
> @@ -2969,9 +2951,16 @@ static int check_modinfo(struct module *mod, struct load_info *info, int flags)
>  			"is unknown, you have been warned.\n", mod->name);
>  	}
>  
> -	err = find_livepatch_modinfo(mod, info);
> -	if (err)
> -		return err;
> +	if (get_modinfo(info, "livepatch")) {
> +		if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LIVEPATCH)) {
> +			pr_err("%s: module is marked as livepatch module, but livepatch support is disabled\n",
> +			       mod->name);
> +			return -ENOEXEC;
> +		}
> +		mod->klp = true;
> +		pr_warn("%s: loading livepatch module.\n", mod->name);
> +		add_taint_module(mod, TAINT_LIVEPATCH, LOCKDEP_STILL_OK);
> +	}

The old code set mod->klp to false if get_modinfo(info, "livepatch")) 
returned true. I think that we don't have to do it, because struct module 
of a module is statically allocated (if I am not mistaken) and hence 
mod->klp should be initialized to false. However maybe it'd better to do 
it explicitly. What do you think?

Miroslav

>  
>  	/* Set up license info based on the info section */
>  	set_license(mod, get_modinfo(info, "license"));
> -- 
> 2.7.4
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe live-patching" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>