Re: klp: make object/func-walking helpers more robust

[Jessica Yu <jeyu@redhat.com>]

+++ Miroslav Benes [29/04/16 09:48 +0200]:
>On Thu, 28 Apr 2016, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 02:21:31PM -0400, Jessica Yu wrote:
>> > +++ Miroslav Benes [28/04/16 16:34 +0200]:
>> > > Current object-walking helper checks the presence of obj->funcs to
>> > > determine the end of objs array in klp_object structure. This is
>> > > somewhat fragile because one can easily forget about funcs definition
>> > > during livepatch creation. In such a case the livepatch module is
>> > > successfully loaded and all objects after the incorrect one are omitted.
>> > > This is very confusing. Let's make the helper more robust and check also
>> > > for the other external member, name. Thus the helper correctly stops on
>> > > an empty item of the array. We need to have a check for obj->funcs in
>> > > klp_init_object() to make it work.
>> > >
>> > > The same applies to a func-walking helper.
>> > >
>> > > As a benefit we'll check for new_func member definition during the
>> > > livepatch initialization. There is no such check anywhere in the code
>> > > now.
>> > >
>> > > Signed-off-by: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>
>> > > ---
>> > > include/linux/livepatch.h | 6 ++++--
>> > > kernel/livepatch/core.c   | 3 +++
>> > > 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> > >
>> > > diff --git a/include/linux/livepatch.h b/include/linux/livepatch.h
>> > > index 0933ca47791c..a93a0b23dc8d 100644
>> > > --- a/include/linux/livepatch.h
>> > > +++ b/include/linux/livepatch.h
>> > > @@ -104,10 +104,12 @@ struct klp_patch {
>> > > };
>> > >
>> > > #define klp_for_each_object(patch, obj) \
>> > > -	for (obj = patch->objs; obj->funcs; obj++)
>> > > +	for (obj = patch->objs; obj->funcs || obj->name; obj++)
>> >
>> > Remember that for patches to vmlinux, obj->name and obj->mod will also
>> > both be NULL. So if someone happens to forget to fill in obj->funcs
>> > for a vmlinux patch, we won't catch that case here.
>
>Yes, that is true. My reasoning is that if someone even accidently writes
>{ } somewhere in the middle of the array, there is nothing we can do to
>help :). I consider it improbable whereas an omission of one field is
>possible.
>
>> > Perhaps we need a
>> > better way of determining whether we've reached the end of the array,
>> > or determining that the struct is truly empty..
>>
>> That would be nice, but I'm not sure how we could do that.  I suppose we
>> could add a patch->nr_objs field.  But that might arguably be even
>> easier for the user to mess up.
>
>Yeah, that is perhaps the only way (ARRAY_SIZE won't work here) besides
>introducing some special mark. I think this is not worth it. I agree it is
>even more error-prone.
>
>The idea behind this patch is that there is at least something we can do
>to help without imposing much on the user.

Yeah, agreed. Then no more objections from me :-)