From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wm1-f46.google.com (mail-wm1-f46.google.com [209.85.128.46]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 989FE1BD9E5 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2025 15:40:49 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.128.46 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1735918852; cv=none; b=E3mB8+115GMhN583/WU7y/mZsRxGKJUpiXs0jF2CCQdwOA+2+G9QZYTAhxc5vWMUYnVk/XsZVnXuudaysLpcyOdVxWkiJ7AOcskb6bopqs91OXyU6x5pNtQoZiVE6QVM25zc2xAcReOe+b6sTPB0Xc1W3CTDss6Hicg889NGNRM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1735918852; c=relaxed/simple; bh=i5qZzjFI1WY+8apiO4HiUgfnSPJe2ob5sL+NIBhLzBw=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=p0mXAQnDRHjHdYuBNsuGJ+y4lXWmDWK8l6mIfW4WZ8/zx0Rrzi5W40kmzBz2dPdf3Ma+LH41hIIj3SKrWixEQaZRPphOPCnNFGS8qYZ1RLikkiF1JV3b/EgvdbjQLHlH4UadlH3piEQaiSXs6y4cdlULwIU9BimDYVBBOoOeu8s= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b=ZAdQWdjq; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.128.46 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b="ZAdQWdjq" Received: by mail-wm1-f46.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-4368a293339so87037425e9.3 for ; Fri, 03 Jan 2025 07:40:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=google; t=1735918848; x=1736523648; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=hbeD/WTyNi2SfqmhdF3cFrvUskEhvZV4JIz8EOPAPaA=; b=ZAdQWdjqQGJ1EY+XMH8DyyIDQMsymkl5X95WnAAVcPHu/NuaIZ2ffHgEWtGXCgMTtx 12l5vRTLhxoiKUJvmlWZMawZ6KfbDh1zkGGTT6Nw0PGvWFqDUlKPVVHSMManIXN9aziy GYX18acjnswlO8UUSSgjSN6DJ+HUyzkK+POFF3tz3Rkk3mszltWKydgT15GWwTgRDybM TX4TPvGI4EgKvhdoyfGJvPsPhx8AvqOKiR68i+MOeNho1IhmmrA1w3uA03GL/hwQ7p+t p7gTPekM+MXY8XnnO/5taR08P07Vge4hbmQgddfQ+7dBDjFoR+Mdl1SpxWLCqRd3luXi zC/A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1735918848; x=1736523648; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=hbeD/WTyNi2SfqmhdF3cFrvUskEhvZV4JIz8EOPAPaA=; b=ujh4bjsHmIuGdak6zvM8LkL81tbijzVOPIKm1I5YGpgm7c1cJEO78Lo6YUJmjUcmAg mQFx8JJZMqrB4Ds75cui9yckHTVeh9DnFUCx6Kc44HgmIgfLUvEfEVj9Xi1PTdvIxGkq 9Er9hQv4EQIuv2eVQdn4Oa+K9tSWytrXyEW+3Nhl5Y7LBlj7vTm8jlS5xcr2NDTyP6mb 6c+kCT4GNQcxmxutltDhhwV7CskNHxfZoFQpiIOPeY9GUS5XFZie3MezbRJqTear/Kd4 c1+IYmUBbOPyX3QXthWFGYNp0YLgZroWJS9dLYEoqbxX+EuHxrkL84MAtYdcDx4SBhH1 FFIg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXg1sXMANLQVKNW/oWIREePl08LqiZpMtGldBBI6e1D6l1zbEMSkc+D1+AT08S+uYgXRZmjBtq/El5UaZk=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzyKPWB6WdwGaAuTqz4m9LB7PaCCaMIBocEUZeSpx6bW1X+Dl6S 3izwTX3+1VHbBlL+6tQ5pNr1BBu/yEwwjzeW2Afl7Pq24Iz0hSsp8nskRdn0q6Q= X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncuRDeCrataIWYAsaL6PRvkobtHpUpfvkcEyCxEOqb8udYPglXxu3wExTxfnVpF FUW8f59AbsXQNL7bpdpkBEJuSck5tWxoL8RW01vCiq390b+kuK5RxGkhNwtRmtxbXUR1Yvtun72 jmpzePwHaAags/1d/kvYb4IlSKaArrAm5KtBZ1NLuimuQhijRetp/JZsLjswk4X9Q8SrkpoRty9 pGgdGo/WDEBoqjm7mXUH69jWTcQHp/Q+wBsJtqgSlNetTMv6GQ5JnBf2m8w X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IECgUYwniAsxFLc1SYC51Z2oBI3ve2Fx8W6o9bmzfhvt47rnW6U2yJjiCFwF6ArBII0heZa4A== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:2af:b0:385:e1a8:e28e with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-38a221e1e76mr41089713f8f.10.1735918847740; Fri, 03 Jan 2025 07:40:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.100.51.161] ([193.86.92.181]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5b1f17b1804b1-436723cb159sm434158075e9.16.2025.01.03.07.40.46 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 03 Jan 2025 07:40:47 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:40:46 +0100 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] module: Don't fail module loading when setting ro_after_init section RO failed To: Daniel Gomez Cc: Christophe Leroy , Luis Chamberlain , Sami Tolvanen , Kees Cook , linux-modules@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner References: <737f952790c96a09ad5e51689918b97ef9b29174.1731148254.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu> <164e5f22f8ab59d1d516e3c992efdd9f83ab4819.1731148254.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu> <7fdcf601-524b-4530-861d-e4b0f8c1023b@suse.com> <9734d93d-73c8-464e-8f32-6117c6f6c952@samsung.com> <95871917-9747-40d4-8305-51bc5d75cf82@samsung.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Petr Pavlu In-Reply-To: <95871917-9747-40d4-8305-51bc5d75cf82@samsung.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 12/10/24 11:49, Daniel Gomez wrote: > On 12/4/2024 4:14 PM, Petr Pavlu wrote: >> On 11/28/24 21:23, Daniel Gomez wrote: >>> On 11/12/2024 3:35 PM, Petr Pavlu wrote: >>>> On 11/12/24 10:43, Daniel Gomez wrote: >>>>> On Mon Nov 11, 2024 at 7:53 PM CET, Christophe Leroy wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Le 09/11/2024 à 23:17, Daniel Gomez a écrit : >>>>>>> On Sat Nov 9, 2024 at 11:35 AM CET, Christophe Leroy wrote: >>>>>>>> Once module init has succeded it is too late to cancel loading. >>>>>>>> If setting ro_after_init data section to read-only fails, all we >>>>>>>> can do is to inform the user through a warning. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Reported-by: Thomas Gleixner >>>>>>>> Closes: https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=d3deb284-b2a35ac3-d3df39cb-74fe485fff30-288375d7d91e4ad9&q=1&e=701066ca-634d-4525-a77d-1a44451f897a&u=https%3A%2F%2Feur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Flore.kernel.org%252Fall%252F20230915082126.4187913-1-ruanjinjie%2540huawei.com%252F%26data%3D05%257C02%257Cchristophe.leroy%2540csgroup.eu%257C26b5ca7363e54210439b08dd010c4865%257C8b87af7d86474dc78df45f69a2011bb5%257C0%257C0%257C638667874457200373%257CUnknown%257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%253D%253D%257C0%257C%257C%257C%26sdata%3DZeJ%252F3%252B2Nx%252FBf%252FWLFEkhxKlDhZk8LNkz0fs%252Fg2xMcOjY%253D%26reserved%3D0 >>>>>>>> Fixes: d1909c022173 ("module: Don't ignore errors from set_memory_XX()") >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> kernel/module/main.c | 6 +++--- >>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> diff --git a/kernel/module/main.c b/kernel/module/main.c >>>>>>>> index 2de4ad7af335..1bf4b0db291b 100644 >>>>>>>> --- a/kernel/module/main.c >>>>>>>> +++ b/kernel/module/main.c >>>>>>>> @@ -2583,7 +2583,9 @@ static noinline int do_init_module(struct module *mod) >>>>>>>> #endif >>>>>>>> ret = module_enable_rodata_ro_after_init(mod); >>>>>>>> if (ret) >>>>>>>> - goto fail_mutex_unlock; >>>>>>>> + pr_warn("%s: %s() returned %d, ro_after_init data might still be writable\n", >>>>>>>> + mod->name, __func__, ret); >>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>> mod_tree_remove_init(mod); >>>>>>>> module_arch_freeing_init(mod); >>>>>>>> for_class_mod_mem_type(type, init) { >>>>>>>> @@ -2622,8 +2624,6 @@ static noinline int do_init_module(struct module *mod) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> return 0; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think it would make sense to propagate the error. But that would >>>>>>> require changing modprobe.c. What kind of error can we expect when this >>>>>>> happens? >>>>>> >>>>>> AFAIK, on powerpc it fails with EINVAL when >>>>>> - The area is a vmalloc or module area and is a hugepage area >>>>>> - The area is not vmalloc or io register and MMU is not powerpc radix MMU >>>>>> >>>>>> Otherwise it propagates the error from apply_to_existing_page_range(). >>>>>> IIUC it will return EINVAL when it hits a leaf PTE in upper directories. >>>>> >>>>> Looking at that path I see we can also fail at __apply_to_page_range() >>>>> -> apply_to_p4d_range() and return with -ENOMEM. >>>>> >>>>> My proposal was to do something like the change below in modprobe: >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/tools/modprobe.c b/tools/modprobe.c >>>>> index ec66e6f..8876e27 100644 >>>>> --- a/tools/modprobe.c >>>>> +++ b/tools/modprobe.c >>>>> @@ -572,6 +572,11 @@ static int insmod_insert(struct kmod_module *mod, int flags, const char *extra_o >>>>> err = 0; >>>>> else { >>>>> switch (err) { >>>>> + case -EINVAL: >>>>> + ERR("module '%s'inserted: ro_after_init data might" >>>>> + "still be writable (see dmesg)\n", >>>>> + kmod_module_get_name(mod)); >>>>> + break; >>>>> case -EEXIST: >>>>> ERR("could not insert '%s': Module already in kernel\n", >>>>> kmod_module_get_name(mod)); >>>>> >>>>> But I think these error codes may be also be reported in other parts >>>>> such as simplify_symbols() so may not be a good idea after all. >>>> >>>> It isn't really possible to make a sensible use of the return code from >>>> init_module(), besides some basic check for -EEXIST. The problem is that >>>> any error code from a module's init function is also propagated as >>>> a result from the syscall. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Maybe we just need to change the default/catch all error message in >>>>> modprobe.c and to indicate/include this case: >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/tools/modprobe.c b/tools/modprobe.c >>>>> index ec66e6f..3647d37 100644 >>>>> --- a/tools/modprobe.c >>>>> +++ b/tools/modprobe.c >>>>> @@ -582,7 +582,8 @@ static int insmod_insert(struct kmod_module *mod, int flags, const char *extra_o >>>>> kmod_module_get_name(mod)); >>>>> break; >>>>> default: >>>>> - ERR("could not insert '%s': %s\n", kmod_module_get_name(mod), >>>>> + ERR("could not insert '%s' or inserted with error %s, " >>>>> + "(see dmesg)\n", kmod_module_get_name(mod), >>>>> strerror(-err)); >>>>> break; >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On other architectures it can be different, I know some architecture try >>>>>> to split the pages when they hit hugepages and that can fail. >>>>> >>>>> Is it worth it adding an error code for this case in case we want to >>>>> report it back? >>>> >>>> I feel that the proposed kernel warning about this situation is >>>> sufficient and the loader should then return 0 to indicate that the >>>> module got loaded. It would be more confusing to return an error but >>>> with the module actually remaining inserted. >>>> >>>> A module loaded without having its RO-after-init section changed >>>> properly to RO is still fully functional. In practice, if this final >>>> set_memory_ro() call fails, the system is already in such a state where >>>> the additional warning is the least of the issues? >>>> >>> >>> __ro_after_init is used for kernel self protection. We are loading >>> "successfully" the module yes, but variables with this attribute are >>> marked read-only to reduce the attack surface [1]. Since we have >>> considered this stage already too late to unload the module, IMHO we >>> should at least indicate that there was an error during the module >>> initialization and propagate that to the loader, so it can decide the >>> best action for their particular case. Warning once in the kernel log >>> system, does not seem sufficient to me. >>> >>> [1] Documentation/security/self-protection.rst >> >> I'd be careful about introducing this new state where (f)init_module() >> returns an error, yet the module actually gets loaded. > > Perhaps we just need this new stage? module loaded with > permission/security error? > >> >> The init_module() interface has one return value which can originate >> from anywhere during the load process, including from the module's own >> init function. As mentioned, this means that the userspace cannot >> distinguish why the module load failed. It would be needed to have >> a specific error code returned only for this case, or to extend the >> interface further in some way. >> >> Another concern is consistency of the module loader interface as >> a whole. Returning an error from init_module() in this case would mean >> that only the specific caller is made aware that the module was loaded >> with some issues. A different task that then decides to check the module >> state under /sys/module would see it as normally loaded, and similarly a > > Maybe we need to change this state too to indicate the problem. > >> task trying to insert it again would get -EEXIST. That likely would need >> changing too. >> >> What I'd like to understand is how reporting this as an error to the >> userspace would help in practice. I think the userspace can decide to >> report it as a warning and continue, or treat is as a hard problem and >> stop the system? I would expect that most tools/systems would opt for >> the former, but then this doesn't seem much different to me than when >> the kernel produces the warning itself. The second option, with some >> stretch, could be implemented with panic_on_warn=1. > > Ideally, we would reverse the module initialization when encountering > this error [1]. However, since it's not feasible to undo it correctly at > this stage, reporting the error back to the caller allows them to assess > and decide whether to accept the risk. > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/Zuv0nmFblHUwuT8v@bombadil.infradead.org/ >> >> Do you envision that the userspace would handle this problem differently >> and it is worth adding the complexity? > > What complexity do you mean? The complexity that I was referring to here is mainly the earlier described limitation of the current init_module() interface and the consistency of the module loader interface as a whole. Another aspect is that a number of modules is loaded directly by the kernel via request_module(). I'm not sure how the new error would be handled in such cases. I suspect request_module() would be also only able to log it as a kernel warning. If I had to choose how to handle this corner case better (in long term), I would rather try to avoid the error in the first place, potentially as mentioned in my other reply by splitting set_memory_ro(). -- Thanks, Petr