Re: [PATCH] modules: fix compile error if don't have strict module rwx

[Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@huawei.com>]

On 2019/6/26 3:21, Jessica Yu wrote:
> +++ Yang Yingliang [25/06/19 17:40 +0800]:
>> If CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_STRICT_MODULE_RWX is not defined,
>> we need stub for module_enable_nx() and module_enable_x().
>>
>> If CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_STRICT_MODULE_RWX is defined, but
>> CONFIG_STRICT_MODULE_RWX is disabled, we need stub for
>> module_enable_nx.
>>
>> Move frob_text() outside of the CONFIG_STRICT_MODULE_RWX,
>> because it is needed anyway.
>
> Maybe include a fixes tag?
>
> Fixes: 2eef1399a866 ("modules: fix BUG when load module with rodata=n")
OK, I will add it in v2.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> kernel/module.c | 13 +++++++++----
>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/module.c b/kernel/module.c
>> index c3ae34c..cfff441 100644
>> --- a/kernel/module.c
>> +++ b/kernel/module.c
>> @@ -1875,7 +1875,7 @@ static void mod_sysfs_teardown(struct module *mod)
>>     mod_sysfs_fini(mod);
>> }
>>
>> -#ifdef CONFIG_STRICT_MODULE_RWX
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_STRICT_MODULE_RWX
>
> Could you please explain why you introduced a new
> CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_STRICT_MODULE_RWX #ifdef block instead of just moving
> frob_text() and module_enable_x() outside of CONFIG_STRICT_MODULE_RWX?
If CONFIG_STRICT_MODULE_RWX is not defined, it has two reasons, one is 
that the
arch don't have strict module rwx and the other reason is that 
CONFIG_STRICT_MODULE_RWX
is disabled. So I introduce CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_STRICT_MODULE_RWX #ifdef 
block to
distinguish this two cases.

>
> I do not have anything against it, although the nested #ifdef's are a
> bit painful to read. But I could not find a better way to do it :/
> It's awkward because we need module_enable_x() and frob_text()
> regardless of of CONFIG_STRICT_MODULE_RWX for x86, but other arches
> don't need to call module_enable_x(), they usually just call the empty 
> stub.
Yes, you are right.
Actually, I was thinking moving all frob_* outside of 
CONFIG_STRICT_MODULE_RWX,
because they all should be regardless of of CONFIG_STRICT_MODULE_RWX. 
But current
only frob_next() is used, move other frob_* outside of 
CONFIG_STRICT_MODULE_RWX
will cause a compile warning if CONFIG_STRICT_MODULE_RWX is disabled, so 
I left them
in CONFIG_STRICT_MODULE_RWX.  We can move them outside of 
CONFIG_STRICT_MODULE_RWX
if they are used in future.
>
> But I think having the CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_STRICT_MODULE_RWX block is OK,
> for the reason of limiting the scope of the calls rather than
> blanketly calling frob_text() andd module_enable_x() for arches that
> don't need to call them. Was that your reasoning as well?
Yes,  it's my reasoning.


Thanks,
Yang
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jessica
>
>
>> /*
>>  * LKM RO/NX protection: protect module's text/ro-data
>>  * from modification and any data from execution.
>> @@ -1898,6 +1898,7 @@ static void frob_text(const struct 
>> module_layout *layout,
>>            layout->text_size >> PAGE_SHIFT);
>> }
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_STRICT_MODULE_RWX
>> static void frob_rodata(const struct module_layout *layout,
>>             int (*set_memory)(unsigned long start, int num_pages))
>> {
>> @@ -2010,15 +2011,19 @@ void set_all_modules_text_ro(void)
>>     }
>>     mutex_unlock(&module_mutex);
>> }
>> -#else
>> +#else /* !CONFIG_STRICT_MODULE_RWX */
>> static void module_enable_nx(const struct module *mod) { }
>> -#endif
>> -
>> +#endif /*  CONFIG_STRICT_MODULE_RWX */
>> static void module_enable_x(const struct module *mod)
>> {
>>     frob_text(&mod->core_layout, set_memory_x);
>>     frob_text(&mod->init_layout, set_memory_x);
>> }
>> +#else /* !CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_STRICT_MODULE_RWX */
>> +static void module_enable_nx(const struct module *mod) { }
>> +static void module_enable_x(const struct module *mod) { }
>> +#endif /* CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_STRICT_MODULE_RWX */
>> +
>>
>> #ifdef CONFIG_LIVEPATCH
>> /*
>> -- 
>> 1.8.3
>>
>
> .
>