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

[Josh Poimboeuf]

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 04:25:15PM +0200, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> 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?

Rusty confirmed before that the module struct is initialized to zero:

  https://lkml.kernel.org/r/87mw3jxdea.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

And I suspect a lot of module code relies on that fact.  For example,
see mod->async_probe_requested.  So my preference would be to follow
what seems to be the current convention in the code, and not explicitly
initialize it to false.

-- 
Josh