[PATCH] jump_label: check entries limit in __jump_label_update

[PATCH] jump_label: check entries limit in __jump_label_update

[Jiri Olsa]

When iterating the jump_label entries array (core or modules),
the __jump_label_update function peeks over the last entry.

The reason is that the end of the for loop depends on the key
value of the processed entry. Thus when going through the
last array entry, we will touch the memory behind the array
limit.

This bug probably will never be triggered, since most likely the
memory behind the jump_label entries will be accesable and the
entry->key will be different than the expected value.


Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
---
 kernel/jump_label.c |   17 ++++++++++++-----
 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/jump_label.c b/kernel/jump_label.c
index 74d1c09..b2ee97a 100644
--- a/kernel/jump_label.c
+++ b/kernel/jump_label.c
@@ -105,9 +105,12 @@ static int __jump_label_text_reserved(struct jump_entry *iter_start,
 }
 
 static void __jump_label_update(struct jump_label_key *key,
-		struct jump_entry *entry, int enable)
+				struct jump_entry *entry,
+				struct jump_entry *stop, int enable)
 {
-	for (; entry->key == (jump_label_t)(unsigned long)key; entry++) {
+	for (; (entry < stop) &&
+	      (entry->key == (jump_label_t)(unsigned long)key);
+	      entry++) {
 		/*
 		 * entry->code set to 0 invalidates module init text sections
 		 * kernel_text_address() verifies we are not in core kernel
@@ -158,6 +161,7 @@ early_initcall(jump_label_init);
 struct jump_label_mod {
 	struct jump_label_mod *next;
 	struct jump_entry *entries;
+	struct jump_entry *entries_stop;
 	struct module *mod;
 };
 
@@ -181,7 +185,8 @@ static void __jump_label_mod_update(struct jump_label_key *key, int enable)
 	struct jump_label_mod *mod = key->next;
 
 	while (mod) {
-		__jump_label_update(key, mod->entries, enable);
+		__jump_label_update(key, mod->entries, mod->entries_stop,
+				    enable);
 		mod = mod->next;
 	}
 }
@@ -241,11 +246,13 @@ static int jump_label_add_module(struct module *mod)
 
 		jlm->mod = mod;
 		jlm->entries = iter;
+		jlm->entries_stop = iter_stop;
 		jlm->next = key->next;
 		key->next = jlm;
 
 		if (jump_label_enabled(key))
-			__jump_label_update(key, iter, JUMP_LABEL_ENABLE);
+			__jump_label_update(key, iter, iter_stop,
+					    JUMP_LABEL_ENABLE);
 	}
 
 	return 0;
@@ -371,7 +378,7 @@ static void jump_label_update(struct jump_label_key *key, int enable)
 
 	/* if there are no users, entry can be NULL */
 	if (entry)
-		__jump_label_update(key, entry, enable);
+		__jump_label_update(key, entry, __stop___jump_table, enable);
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_MODULES
 	__jump_label_mod_update(key, enable);
-- 
1.7.1

Re: [PATCH] jump_label: check entries limit in __jump_label_update

[Jason Baron]

On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 05:30:23PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> When iterating the jump_label entries array (core or modules),
> the __jump_label_update function peeks over the last entry.
> 
> The reason is that the end of the for loop depends on the key
> value of the processed entry. Thus when going through the
> last array entry, we will touch the memory behind the array
> limit.
> 
> This bug probably will never be triggered, since most likely the
> memory behind the jump_label entries will be accesable and the
> entry->key will be different than the expected value.
> 
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
> ---
>  kernel/jump_label.c |   17 ++++++++++++-----
>  1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/jump_label.c b/kernel/jump_label.c
> index 74d1c09..b2ee97a 100644
> --- a/kernel/jump_label.c
> +++ b/kernel/jump_label.c
> @@ -105,9 +105,12 @@ static int __jump_label_text_reserved(struct jump_entry *iter_start,
>  }
>  
>  static void __jump_label_update(struct jump_label_key *key,
> -		struct jump_entry *entry, int enable)
> +				struct jump_entry *entry,
> +				struct jump_entry *stop, int enable)
>  {
> -	for (; entry->key == (jump_label_t)(unsigned long)key; entry++) {
> +	for (; (entry < stop) &&
> +	      (entry->key == (jump_label_t)(unsigned long)key);
> +	      entry++) {
>  		/*
>  		 * entry->code set to 0 invalidates module init text sections
>  		 * kernel_text_address() verifies we are not in core kernel
> @@ -158,6 +161,7 @@ early_initcall(jump_label_init);
>  struct jump_label_mod {
>  	struct jump_label_mod *next;
>  	struct jump_entry *entries;
> +	struct jump_entry *entries_stop;
>  	struct module *mod;
>  };
>  
> @@ -181,7 +185,8 @@ static void __jump_label_mod_update(struct jump_label_key *key, int enable)
>  	struct jump_label_mod *mod = key->next;
>  
>  	while (mod) {
> -		__jump_label_update(key, mod->entries, enable);
> +		__jump_label_update(key, mod->entries, mod->entries_stop,
> +				    enable);
>  		mod = mod->next;

hmmm. Instead of adding a new field to the 'struct jump_label_mod' data
structure (and thus increasing its footprint), why not use:
mod->jump_entries +  mod->num_jump_entries here?

Otherwise, I agree this is a nice fix to have.

Thanks,

-Jason


>  	}
>  }
> @@ -241,11 +246,13 @@ static int jump_label_add_module(struct module *mod)
>  
>  		jlm->mod = mod;
>  		jlm->entries = iter;
> +		jlm->entries_stop = iter_stop;
>  		jlm->next = key->next;
>  		key->next = jlm;
>  
>  		if (jump_label_enabled(key))
> -			__jump_label_update(key, iter, JUMP_LABEL_ENABLE);
> +			__jump_label_update(key, iter, iter_stop,
> +					    JUMP_LABEL_ENABLE);
>  	}
>  
>  	return 0;
> @@ -371,7 +378,7 @@ static void jump_label_update(struct jump_label_key *key, int enable)
>  
>  	/* if there are no users, entry can be NULL */
>  	if (entry)
> -		__jump_label_update(key, entry, enable);
> +		__jump_label_update(key, entry, __stop___jump_table, enable);
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_MODULES
>  	__jump_label_mod_update(key, enable);
> -- 
> 1.7.1
> 

[PATCHv2] jump_label: check entries limit in __jump_label_update

[Jiri Olsa]

On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 03:32:48PM -0400, Jason Baron wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 05:30:23PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > When iterating the jump_label entries array (core or modules),
> > the __jump_label_update function peeks over the last entry.
> > 
> > The reason is that the end of the for loop depends on the key
> > value of the processed entry. Thus when going through the
> > last array entry, we will touch the memory behind the array
> > limit.
> > 
> > This bug probably will never be triggered, since most likely the
> > memory behind the jump_label entries will be accesable and the
> > entry->key will be different than the expected value.
> > 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  kernel/jump_label.c |   17 ++++++++++++-----
> >  1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/jump_label.c b/kernel/jump_label.c
> > index 74d1c09..b2ee97a 100644
> > --- a/kernel/jump_label.c
> > +++ b/kernel/jump_label.c
> > @@ -105,9 +105,12 @@ static int __jump_label_text_reserved(struct jump_entry *iter_start,
> >  }
> >  
> >  static void __jump_label_update(struct jump_label_key *key,
> > -		struct jump_entry *entry, int enable)
> > +				struct jump_entry *entry,
> > +				struct jump_entry *stop, int enable)
> >  {
> > -	for (; entry->key == (jump_label_t)(unsigned long)key; entry++) {
> > +	for (; (entry < stop) &&
> > +	      (entry->key == (jump_label_t)(unsigned long)key);
> > +	      entry++) {
> >  		/*
> >  		 * entry->code set to 0 invalidates module init text sections
> >  		 * kernel_text_address() verifies we are not in core kernel
> > @@ -158,6 +161,7 @@ early_initcall(jump_label_init);
> >  struct jump_label_mod {
> >  	struct jump_label_mod *next;
> >  	struct jump_entry *entries;
> > +	struct jump_entry *entries_stop;
> >  	struct module *mod;
> >  };
> >  
> > @@ -181,7 +185,8 @@ static void __jump_label_mod_update(struct jump_label_key *key, int enable)
> >  	struct jump_label_mod *mod = key->next;
> >  
> >  	while (mod) {
> > -		__jump_label_update(key, mod->entries, enable);
> > +		__jump_label_update(key, mod->entries, mod->entries_stop,
> > +				    enable);
> >  		mod = mod->next;
> 
> hmmm. Instead of adding a new field to the 'struct jump_label_mod' data
> structure (and thus increasing its footprint), why not use:
> mod->jump_entries +  mod->num_jump_entries here?

yep, overlooked the struct module pointer inside jump_label_mod
attaching new patch

thanks,
jirka
 
---
When iterating the jump_label entries array (core or modules),
the __jump_label_update function peeks over the last entry.

The reason is that the end of the for loop depends on the key
value of the processed entry. Thus when going through the
last array entry, we will touch the memory behind the array
limit.

This bug probably will never be triggered, since most likely the
memory behind the jump_label entries will be accesable and the
entry->key will be different than the expected value.


Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
---
 kernel/jump_label.c |   18 +++++++++++++-----
 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/jump_label.c b/kernel/jump_label.c
index 74d1c09..fa27e75 100644
--- a/kernel/jump_label.c
+++ b/kernel/jump_label.c
@@ -105,9 +105,12 @@ static int __jump_label_text_reserved(struct jump_entry *iter_start,
 }
 
 static void __jump_label_update(struct jump_label_key *key,
-		struct jump_entry *entry, int enable)
+				struct jump_entry *entry,
+				struct jump_entry *stop, int enable)
 {
-	for (; entry->key == (jump_label_t)(unsigned long)key; entry++) {
+	for (; (entry < stop) &&
+	      (entry->key == (jump_label_t)(unsigned long)key);
+	      entry++) {
 		/*
 		 * entry->code set to 0 invalidates module init text sections
 		 * kernel_text_address() verifies we are not in core kernel
@@ -181,7 +184,11 @@ static void __jump_label_mod_update(struct jump_label_key *key, int enable)
 	struct jump_label_mod *mod = key->next;
 
 	while (mod) {
-		__jump_label_update(key, mod->entries, enable);
+		struct module *m = mod->mod;
+
+		__jump_label_update(key, mod->entries,
+				    m->jump_entries + m->num_jump_entries,
+				    enable);
 		mod = mod->next;
 	}
 }
@@ -245,7 +252,8 @@ static int jump_label_add_module(struct module *mod)
 		key->next = jlm;
 
 		if (jump_label_enabled(key))
-			__jump_label_update(key, iter, JUMP_LABEL_ENABLE);
+			__jump_label_update(key, iter, iter_stop,
+					    JUMP_LABEL_ENABLE);
 	}
 
 	return 0;
@@ -371,7 +379,7 @@ static void jump_label_update(struct jump_label_key *key, int enable)
 
 	/* if there are no users, entry can be NULL */
 	if (entry)
-		__jump_label_update(key, entry, enable);
+		__jump_label_update(key, entry, __stop___jump_table, enable);
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_MODULES
 	__jump_label_mod_update(key, enable);
-- 
1.7.1

Re: [PATCHv2] jump_label: check entries limit in __jump_label_update

[Jason Baron]

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:43:46PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 03:32:48PM -0400, Jason Baron wrote:
> > On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 05:30:23PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > When iterating the jump_label entries array (core or modules),
> > > the __jump_label_update function peeks over the last entry.
> > > 
> > > The reason is that the end of the for loop depends on the key
> > > value of the processed entry. Thus when going through the
> > > last array entry, we will touch the memory behind the array
> > > limit.
> > > 
> > > This bug probably will never be triggered, since most likely the
> > > memory behind the jump_label entries will be accesable and the
> > > entry->key will be different than the expected value.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > >  kernel/jump_label.c |   17 ++++++++++++-----
> > >  1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/kernel/jump_label.c b/kernel/jump_label.c
> > > index 74d1c09..b2ee97a 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/jump_label.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/jump_label.c
> > > @@ -105,9 +105,12 @@ static int __jump_label_text_reserved(struct jump_entry *iter_start,
> > >  }
> > >  
> > >  static void __jump_label_update(struct jump_label_key *key,
> > > -		struct jump_entry *entry, int enable)
> > > +				struct jump_entry *entry,
> > > +				struct jump_entry *stop, int enable)
> > >  {
> > > -	for (; entry->key == (jump_label_t)(unsigned long)key; entry++) {
> > > +	for (; (entry < stop) &&
> > > +	      (entry->key == (jump_label_t)(unsigned long)key);
> > > +	      entry++) {
> > >  		/*
> > >  		 * entry->code set to 0 invalidates module init text sections
> > >  		 * kernel_text_address() verifies we are not in core kernel
> > > @@ -158,6 +161,7 @@ early_initcall(jump_label_init);
> > >  struct jump_label_mod {
> > >  	struct jump_label_mod *next;
> > >  	struct jump_entry *entries;
> > > +	struct jump_entry *entries_stop;
> > >  	struct module *mod;
> > >  };
> > >  
> > > @@ -181,7 +185,8 @@ static void __jump_label_mod_update(struct jump_label_key *key, int enable)
> > >  	struct jump_label_mod *mod = key->next;
> > >  
> > >  	while (mod) {
> > > -		__jump_label_update(key, mod->entries, enable);
> > > +		__jump_label_update(key, mod->entries, mod->entries_stop,
> > > +				    enable);
> > >  		mod = mod->next;
> > 
> > hmmm. Instead of adding a new field to the 'struct jump_label_mod' data
> > structure (and thus increasing its footprint), why not use:
> > mod->jump_entries +  mod->num_jump_entries here?
> 
> yep, overlooked the struct module pointer inside jump_label_mod
> attaching new patch
> 
> thanks,
> jirka
>  
> ---
> When iterating the jump_label entries array (core or modules),
> the __jump_label_update function peeks over the last entry.
> 
> The reason is that the end of the for loop depends on the key
> value of the processed entry. Thus when going through the
> last array entry, we will touch the memory behind the array
> limit.
> 
> This bug probably will never be triggered, since most likely the
> memory behind the jump_label entries will be accesable and the
> entry->key will be different than the expected value.
> 
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
> ---
>  kernel/jump_label.c |   18 +++++++++++++-----
>  1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/jump_label.c b/kernel/jump_label.c
> index 74d1c09..fa27e75 100644
> --- a/kernel/jump_label.c
> +++ b/kernel/jump_label.c
> @@ -105,9 +105,12 @@ static int __jump_label_text_reserved(struct jump_entry *iter_start,
>  }
>  
>  static void __jump_label_update(struct jump_label_key *key,
> -		struct jump_entry *entry, int enable)
> +				struct jump_entry *entry,
> +				struct jump_entry *stop, int enable)
>  {
> -	for (; entry->key == (jump_label_t)(unsigned long)key; entry++) {
> +	for (; (entry < stop) &&
> +	      (entry->key == (jump_label_t)(unsigned long)key);
> +	      entry++) {
>  		/*
>  		 * entry->code set to 0 invalidates module init text sections
>  		 * kernel_text_address() verifies we are not in core kernel
> @@ -181,7 +184,11 @@ static void __jump_label_mod_update(struct jump_label_key *key, int enable)
>  	struct jump_label_mod *mod = key->next;
>  
>  	while (mod) {
> -		__jump_label_update(key, mod->entries, enable);
> +		struct module *m = mod->mod;
> +
> +		__jump_label_update(key, mod->entries,
> +				    m->jump_entries + m->num_jump_entries,
> +				    enable);
>  		mod = mod->next;
>  	}
>  }
> @@ -245,7 +252,8 @@ static int jump_label_add_module(struct module *mod)
>  		key->next = jlm;
>  
>  		if (jump_label_enabled(key))
> -			__jump_label_update(key, iter, JUMP_LABEL_ENABLE);
> +			__jump_label_update(key, iter, iter_stop,
> +					    JUMP_LABEL_ENABLE);
>  	}
>  
>  	return 0;
> @@ -371,7 +379,7 @@ static void jump_label_update(struct jump_label_key *key, int enable)
>  
>  	/* if there are no users, entry can be NULL */
>  	if (entry)
> -		__jump_label_update(key, entry, enable);
> +		__jump_label_update(key, entry, __stop___jump_table, enable);
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_MODULES
>  	__jump_label_mod_update(key, enable);
> -- 
> 1.7.1
> 

Looks good.

Acked-by: Jason Baron <jbaron@redhat.com>

Thanks,

-Jason

Re: [PATCHv2] jump_label: check entries limit in __jump_label_update

[Jiri Olsa]

hi,
any feedback?

thanks,
jirka

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:30:45AM -0400, Jason Baron wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:43:46PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 03:32:48PM -0400, Jason Baron wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 05:30:23PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > > When iterating the jump_label entries array (core or modules),
> > > > the __jump_label_update function peeks over the last entry.
> > > > 
> > > > The reason is that the end of the for loop depends on the key
> > > > value of the processed entry. Thus when going through the
> > > > last array entry, we will touch the memory behind the array
> > > > limit.
> > > > 
> > > > This bug probably will never be triggered, since most likely the
> > > > memory behind the jump_label entries will be accesable and the
> > > > entry->key will be different than the expected value.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  kernel/jump_label.c |   17 ++++++++++++-----
> > > >  1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/jump_label.c b/kernel/jump_label.c
> > > > index 74d1c09..b2ee97a 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/jump_label.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/jump_label.c
> > > > @@ -105,9 +105,12 @@ static int __jump_label_text_reserved(struct jump_entry *iter_start,
> > > >  }
> > > >  
> > > >  static void __jump_label_update(struct jump_label_key *key,
> > > > -		struct jump_entry *entry, int enable)
> > > > +				struct jump_entry *entry,
> > > > +				struct jump_entry *stop, int enable)
> > > >  {
> > > > -	for (; entry->key == (jump_label_t)(unsigned long)key; entry++) {
> > > > +	for (; (entry < stop) &&
> > > > +	      (entry->key == (jump_label_t)(unsigned long)key);
> > > > +	      entry++) {
> > > >  		/*
> > > >  		 * entry->code set to 0 invalidates module init text sections
> > > >  		 * kernel_text_address() verifies we are not in core kernel
> > > > @@ -158,6 +161,7 @@ early_initcall(jump_label_init);
> > > >  struct jump_label_mod {
> > > >  	struct jump_label_mod *next;
> > > >  	struct jump_entry *entries;
> > > > +	struct jump_entry *entries_stop;
> > > >  	struct module *mod;
> > > >  };
> > > >  
> > > > @@ -181,7 +185,8 @@ static void __jump_label_mod_update(struct jump_label_key *key, int enable)
> > > >  	struct jump_label_mod *mod = key->next;
> > > >  
> > > >  	while (mod) {
> > > > -		__jump_label_update(key, mod->entries, enable);
> > > > +		__jump_label_update(key, mod->entries, mod->entries_stop,
> > > > +				    enable);
> > > >  		mod = mod->next;
> > > 
> > > hmmm. Instead of adding a new field to the 'struct jump_label_mod' data
> > > structure (and thus increasing its footprint), why not use:
> > > mod->jump_entries +  mod->num_jump_entries here?
> > 
> > yep, overlooked the struct module pointer inside jump_label_mod
> > attaching new patch
> > 
> > thanks,
> > jirka
> >  
> > ---
> > When iterating the jump_label entries array (core or modules),
> > the __jump_label_update function peeks over the last entry.
> > 
> > The reason is that the end of the for loop depends on the key
> > value of the processed entry. Thus when going through the
> > last array entry, we will touch the memory behind the array
> > limit.
> > 
> > This bug probably will never be triggered, since most likely the
> > memory behind the jump_label entries will be accesable and the
> > entry->key will be different than the expected value.
> > 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  kernel/jump_label.c |   18 +++++++++++++-----
> >  1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/jump_label.c b/kernel/jump_label.c
> > index 74d1c09..fa27e75 100644
> > --- a/kernel/jump_label.c
> > +++ b/kernel/jump_label.c
> > @@ -105,9 +105,12 @@ static int __jump_label_text_reserved(struct jump_entry *iter_start,
> >  }
> >  
> >  static void __jump_label_update(struct jump_label_key *key,
> > -		struct jump_entry *entry, int enable)
> > +				struct jump_entry *entry,
> > +				struct jump_entry *stop, int enable)
> >  {
> > -	for (; entry->key == (jump_label_t)(unsigned long)key; entry++) {
> > +	for (; (entry < stop) &&
> > +	      (entry->key == (jump_label_t)(unsigned long)key);
> > +	      entry++) {
> >  		/*
> >  		 * entry->code set to 0 invalidates module init text sections
> >  		 * kernel_text_address() verifies we are not in core kernel
> > @@ -181,7 +184,11 @@ static void __jump_label_mod_update(struct jump_label_key *key, int enable)
> >  	struct jump_label_mod *mod = key->next;
> >  
> >  	while (mod) {
> > -		__jump_label_update(key, mod->entries, enable);
> > +		struct module *m = mod->mod;
> > +
> > +		__jump_label_update(key, mod->entries,
> > +				    m->jump_entries + m->num_jump_entries,
> > +				    enable);
> >  		mod = mod->next;
> >  	}
> >  }
> > @@ -245,7 +252,8 @@ static int jump_label_add_module(struct module *mod)
> >  		key->next = jlm;
> >  
> >  		if (jump_label_enabled(key))
> > -			__jump_label_update(key, iter, JUMP_LABEL_ENABLE);
> > +			__jump_label_update(key, iter, iter_stop,
> > +					    JUMP_LABEL_ENABLE);
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	return 0;
> > @@ -371,7 +379,7 @@ static void jump_label_update(struct jump_label_key *key, int enable)
> >  
> >  	/* if there are no users, entry can be NULL */
> >  	if (entry)
> > -		__jump_label_update(key, entry, enable);
> > +		__jump_label_update(key, entry, __stop___jump_table, enable);
> >  
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_MODULES
> >  	__jump_label_mod_update(key, enable);
> > -- 
> > 1.7.1
> > 
> 
> Looks good.
> 
> Acked-by: Jason Baron <jbaron@redhat.com>
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -Jason

[tip:perf/urgent] jump_label: Check entries limit in __jump_label_update

[tip-bot for Jiri Olsa]

Commit-ID:  7cbc5b8d4a775a43875a09e29c49a2a8195b5b2d
Gitweb:     http://git.kernel.org/tip/7cbc5b8d4a775a43875a09e29c49a2a8195b5b2d
Author:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
AuthorDate: Tue, 10 May 2011 12:43:46 +0200
Committer:  Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
CommitDate: Wed, 25 May 2011 19:56:36 -0400

jump_label: Check entries limit in __jump_label_update

When iterating the jump_label entries array (core or modules),
the __jump_label_update function peeks over the last entry.

The reason is that the end of the for loop depends on the key
value of the processed entry. Thus when going through the
last array entry, we will touch the memory behind the array
limit.

This bug probably will never be triggered, since most likely the
memory behind the jump_label entries will be accesable and the
entry->key will be different than the expected value.

Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Jason Baron <jbaron@redhat.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20110510104346.GC1899@jolsa.brq.redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
---
 kernel/jump_label.c |   18 +++++++++++++-----
 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/jump_label.c b/kernel/jump_label.c
index 74d1c09..fa27e75 100644
--- a/kernel/jump_label.c
+++ b/kernel/jump_label.c
@@ -105,9 +105,12 @@ static int __jump_label_text_reserved(struct jump_entry *iter_start,
 }
 
 static void __jump_label_update(struct jump_label_key *key,
-		struct jump_entry *entry, int enable)
+				struct jump_entry *entry,
+				struct jump_entry *stop, int enable)
 {
-	for (; entry->key == (jump_label_t)(unsigned long)key; entry++) {
+	for (; (entry < stop) &&
+	      (entry->key == (jump_label_t)(unsigned long)key);
+	      entry++) {
 		/*
 		 * entry->code set to 0 invalidates module init text sections
 		 * kernel_text_address() verifies we are not in core kernel
@@ -181,7 +184,11 @@ static void __jump_label_mod_update(struct jump_label_key *key, int enable)
 	struct jump_label_mod *mod = key->next;
 
 	while (mod) {
-		__jump_label_update(key, mod->entries, enable);
+		struct module *m = mod->mod;
+
+		__jump_label_update(key, mod->entries,
+				    m->jump_entries + m->num_jump_entries,
+				    enable);
 		mod = mod->next;
 	}
 }
@@ -245,7 +252,8 @@ static int jump_label_add_module(struct module *mod)
 		key->next = jlm;
 
 		if (jump_label_enabled(key))
-			__jump_label_update(key, iter, JUMP_LABEL_ENABLE);
+			__jump_label_update(key, iter, iter_stop,
+					    JUMP_LABEL_ENABLE);
 	}
 
 	return 0;
@@ -371,7 +379,7 @@ static void jump_label_update(struct jump_label_key *key, int enable)
 
 	/* if there are no users, entry can be NULL */
 	if (entry)
-		__jump_label_update(key, entry, enable);
+		__jump_label_update(key, entry, __stop___jump_table, enable);
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_MODULES
 	__jump_label_mod_update(key, enable);