Re: [PATCH v5 19/34] random: vDSO: only access vDSO datapage after random_init()

["Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>]

On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 12:24:13PM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > > > For example, one clean way of
> > > > doing that would be to make vdso_k_rng_data always valid by having it
> > > > initially point to __initdata memory, and then when it's time to
> > > > initialize the real datapage, memcpy() the __initdata memory to the new
> > > > specially allocated memory. Then we don't need the complex state
> > > > tracking that this commit and the prior one introduce.
> > > 
> > > Wouldn't that require synchronization between the update path and the memcpy()
> > > path? Also if the pointer is going to change at some point we'll probably need
> > > to use READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE(). In general I would be happy about a cleaner
> > > solution for this but didn't find a great one.
> > 
> > This is still before userspace has started, and interrupts are disabled,
> > so I don't think so?
> 
> Interrupts being disabled is a good point. But we are still leaking
> implementation details from the random code into the vdso datastore.

It wouldn't. You do this generically with memcpy().

> 
> > Also, you only care about being after
> > mm_core_init(), right? So move your thing before sched_init() and then
> > you'll really have nothing to worry about.
> 
> The callchains random_init_early() -> crng_reseed()/_credit_init_bits() could
> still touch the datapage before it is allocated.
> Adding conditionals to prevent those is essentially what my patch does.

I think I wasn't very clear in my proposal, because this isn't an issue
in it.

Global scope:

static struct vdso_rng_data placeholder_vdso_k_rng_data __initdata;
struct vdso_rng_data *vdso_k_rng_data = &placeholder_vdso_k_rng_data;

Then,

void __init vdso_setup_data_pages(void)
{
    ...
    vdso_k_rng_data = blabla();
    ...
    memcpy(vdso_k_rng_data, &placeholder_vdso_k_rng_data, sizeof(*vdso_k_rng_data);
    ...
}

If vdso_setup_data_pages() is called early enough in init, this is safe
to do, and then you don't need to muck up the random code with awful
state machine ordering stuff.

Jason