CONFIG_DEBUG_SET_MODULE_RONX broken (was Re: [PATCHv2] arm64: add support to dump the kernel page tables)

[rusty@rustcorp.com.au (Rusty Russell)]

Laura Abbott <lauraa@codeaurora.org> writes:
> (cc Rusty Russell for reference)
>
> On 11/19/2014 3:01 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Laura Abbott <lauraa@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>>> In a similar manner to arm, it's useful to be able to dump the page
>>> tables to verify permissions and memory types. Add a debugfs file
>>> to check the page tables.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <lauraa@codeaurora.org>
>>
>> This seems to behave well for me. Thanks!
>>
>> Tested-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
>>
>> In my configuration, though, with CONFIG_DEBUG_SET_MODULE_RONX=y, I'm
>> only seeing RO, and no NX changes. I haven't constructed a test for
>> the module memory behavior directly (to see if this is a page table
>> issue or a PTDUMP reporting issue). This series I'm testing has gone
>> through some backporting on my end, so I wanted to just double-check
>> and see if you saw this too, or if it's specific to my environment:
>>
>> ---[ Modules ]---
>> 0xffffffbffc000000-0xffffffbffc005000          20K     ro x  SHD AF
>> UXN MEM/NORMAL
>> 0xffffffbffc005000-0xffffffbffc007000           8K     RW x  SHD AF
>> UXN MEM/NORMAL
>> 0xffffffbffc00c000-0xffffffbffc00e000           8K     ro x  SHD AF
>> UXN MEM/NORMAL
>> 0xffffffbffc00e000-0xffffffbffc010000           8K     RW x  SHD AF
>> UXN MEM/NORMAL
>> ...
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -Kees
>>
>
> Yep, I'm seeing the same thing. We're failing the bounds check:
>
> if (!is_module_address(start) || !is_module_address(end - 1))
>                  return -EINVAL;

That's a weird test, but I can agree that it's now broken.  What's it for?

> There are now two problems with this check
>
> 1) 4982223e51e8 module: set nx before marking module MODULE_STATE_COMING
> moved around the order of when nx was set. Now we hit the mod->state ==
> MODULE_STATE_UNFORMED in __module_address so module_address on anything
> always returns false. I think my previous testing must have been done
> on a branch without that patch.
>
> 2) It's possible for the end of the region we are trying to set as nx
> to not be fully page size aligned. This seems to be caused by things
> getting aligned in layout_section but becoming unaligned in layout_symtab

Yes, but you only need the first change in your patch: mod->init_size
should already be aligned (and unlike mod->core_size, we haven't
modified it).

> diff --git a/kernel/module.c b/kernel/module.c
> index 972151b..3791330 100644
> --- a/kernel/module.c
> +++ b/kernel/module.c
> @@ -2316,10 +2316,14 @@ static void layout_symtab(struct module *mod, struct load_info *info)
>          info->stroffs = mod->core_size = info->symoffs + ndst * sizeof(Elf_Sym);
>          mod->core_size += strtab_size;
>   
> +       mod->core_size = debug_align(mod->core_size);
> +
>          /* Put string table section at end of init part of module. */
>          strsect->sh_flags |= SHF_ALLOC;
>          strsect->sh_entsize = get_offset(mod, &mod->init_size, strsect,
>                                           info->index.str) | INIT_OFFSET_MASK;
> +
> +       mod->init_size = debug_align(mod->init_size);
>          pr_debug("\t%s\n", info->secstrings + strsect->sh_name);
>   }
>   
> I haven't tried a bisect to see if this is new.
>
> I'm kind of tempted to switch the bounds check back to
> (addr >= MODULES_VADDR && addr < MODULES_END) unless there is a clean way to
> fixup module.c

Thanks,
Rusty.