Re: [PATCH net v2] ppp: defer channel free to an RCU grace period to fix pppol2tp RX UAF

[Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@suse.com>]

On 7/8/26 9:49 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2026-07-07 17:32:10 [+0200], Petr Pavlu wrote:
>>> --- a/kernel/module/main.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/module/main.c
>>> @@ -858,6 +858,9 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(delete_module, const char __user *, name_user,
>>>  		goto out;
>>>  
>>>  	mutex_unlock(&module_mutex);
>>> +
>>> +	/* Ensure all rcu callbacks issued by the module have completed */
>>> +	rcu_barrier();
>>>  	/* Final destruction now no one is using it. */
>>>  	if (mod->exit != NULL)
>>>  		mod->exit();
>>>
>>> make sense?
>>
>> This is discussed in Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.rst and
>> Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst. The latter
>> contains:
> 
> I am aware of this. It is just not the first time I stumble about this.
> But maybe with the AI review these days there won't be a miss.
> 
>> I don't know if the last part about unacceptable latencies is still
>> relevant. I haven't done any measurements myself.
> 
> There is a synchronize_rcu() later on. I think I could replace it with a
> call_rcu() so we might end up even. I was thinking about about it last
> time I was touching modules but somehow I stopped where I stopped.
> The question is just, is it worth doing it or is it reasonable to expect
> that it is done correctly.

As RCU usage in modules is now more common, I see an argument for the
module loader to invoke rcu_barrier() during module unload to make RCU
usage easier. In general, module unloading is a rare operation, so even
if it becomes somewhat slower, I don't expect it to be a significant
issue.

One problem is that I'm not sure where the new rcu_barrier() call should
be placed. The prototype adds it before calling the module's exit
function. Would this actually fit all modules? From a quick look, I can
see that various modules call it at different points during their exit.

-- 
Thanks,
Petr