Re: [PATCH] module: Harden STRICT_MODULE_RWX

[Josh Poimboeuf]

On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 06:37:16PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> We're very close to enforcing W^X memory, refuse to load modules that
> violate this principle per construction.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Jessica Yu <jeyu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  kernel/module.c |   24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
> 
> --- a/kernel/module.c
> +++ b/kernel/module.c
> @@ -2044,9 +2044,28 @@ static void module_enable_x(const struct
>  	frob_text(&mod->core_layout, set_memory_x);
>  	frob_text(&mod->init_layout, set_memory_x);
>  }
> +
> +static int module_rwx_sections(Elf_Ehdr *hdr, Elf_Shdr *sechdrs,
> +			       char *secstrings, struct module *mod)

A verb would be nice: "module_enforce_rwx_sections"?

Shouldn't this be under STRICT_MODULE_RWX instead of
ARCH_HAS_STRICT_MODULE_RWX?

> +{
> +	int i;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < hdr->e_shnum; i++) {
> +		if (sechdrs[i].sh_flags & (SHF_EXECINSTR|SHF_WRITE))
> +			return -ENOEXEC;

I think you only want the error when both are set?

		if (sechdrs[i].sh_flags & (SHF_EXECINSTR|SHF_WRITE) == (SHF_EXECINSTR|SHF_WRITE))

-- 
Josh