On Mon, Sep 09, 2024 at 08:40:34AM +0100, Vincent Donnefort wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 07, 2024 at 03:12:13PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 06, 2024 at 04:38:56PM +0100, Vincent Donnefort wrote:
> > > commit ac3b43283923 ("module: replace module_layout with module_memory")
> > > introduced a set of memory regions for the module layout sharing the
> > > same attributes but didn't update the kmemleak scanned areas which
> > > intended to limit kmemleak scan to sections containing writable data.
> > > This means sections such as .text and .rodata are scanned by kmemleak.
> > >
> > > Refine the scanned areas for modules by limiting it to MOD_TEXT and
> > > MOD_INIT_TEXT mod_mem regions.
> > >
> > > CC: Song Liu <s...@kernel.org>
> > > CC: Catalin Marinas <catalin.mari...@arm.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Vincent Donnefort <vdonnef...@google.com>
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/module/debug_kmemleak.c
> > > b/kernel/module/debug_kmemleak.c
> > > index 12a569d361e8..b4cc03842d70 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/module/debug_kmemleak.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/module/debug_kmemleak.c
> > > @@ -12,19 +12,9 @@
> > > void kmemleak_load_module(const struct module *mod,
> > > const struct load_info *info)
> > > {
> > > - unsigned int i;
> > > -
> > > - /* only scan the sections containing data */
> > > - kmemleak_scan_area(mod, sizeof(struct module), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > -
> > > - for (i = 1; i < info->hdr->e_shnum; i++) {
> > > - /* Scan all writable sections that's not executable */
> > > - if (!(info->sechdrs[i].sh_flags & SHF_ALLOC) ||
> > > - !(info->sechdrs[i].sh_flags & SHF_WRITE) ||
> > > - (info->sechdrs[i].sh_flags & SHF_EXECINSTR))
> > > - continue;
> > > -
> > > - kmemleak_scan_area((void *)info->sechdrs[i].sh_addr,
> > > - info->sechdrs[i].sh_size, GFP_KERNEL);
> > > + /* only scan writable, non-executable sections */
> > > + for_each_mod_mem_type(type) {
> > > + if (type != MOD_DATA && type != MOD_INIT_DATA)
> > > + kmemleak_no_scan(mod->mem[type].base);
> > > }
> > > }
> >
> > I lost track of how module memory allocation works. Is struct module
> > still scanned after this change?
>
> That section being RW, it will be part of the MOD_DATA vmalloc and scanned.
Ah, makes sense. I'm fine with this patch, it simplifies the code now
that we have mod->mem[type]. I wouldn't say it's a fix, though no
backporting needed.
Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.mari...@arm.com>
