On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 1:40 AM, Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Lucas De Marchi
> <lucas.demar...@profusion.mobi> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 5:39 AM, Rusty Russell <ru...@rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
>>> "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpa...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> FIX: add flags arg to sys_finit_module()
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks to Michael Kerrisk for keeping us honest.
>>>>
>>>> w00t! Thanks, Rusty ;-).
>>>>
>>>> Acked-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpa...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> Here's the version I ended up with when I added two flags.
>>>
>>> Lucas, is this useful to you?
>>>
>>> BTW Michael: why aren't the syscall man pages in the kernel source?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Rusty.
>>>
>>> module: add flags arg to sys_finit_module()
>>>
>>> Thanks to Michael Kerrisk for keeping us honest. These flags are actually
>>> useful for eliminating the only case where kmod has to mangle a module's
>>> internals: for overriding module versioning.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <ru...@rustcorp.com.au>
>
> Acked-by: Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org>
>
>> I wonder if we shouldn't get a new init_module2() as well, adding the
>> flags parameter. Of course this would be in another patch.
>>
>> My worries are that for compressed modules we still need to use
>> init_module() and then --force won't work with signed modules.
>
> For those cases, I think it should remain up to userspace to do the
> decompress and use init_module(). The code I'd written for patching
> module-init-tools basically just kept the fd around if it didn't need
> to mangle the module, and it would use finit_module (written before
> the flags argument was added):
>
> /* request kernel linkage */
> - ret = init_module(module->data, module->len, opts);
> + if (fd < 0)
> + ret = init_module(module->data, module->len, opts);
> + else {
> + ret = finit_module(fd, opts);
> + if (ret != 0 && errno == ENOSYS)
> + ret = init_module(module->data, module->len, opts);
> + }
> if (ret != 0) {
>
> (And yes, I realize kmod is what'll actually be getting this logic.
> This was for my testing in Chrome OS, which is still using
> module-init-tools.)
sure... but do you realize this will fail in case kernel is checking
module signature and we passed --force to modprobe (therefore mangled
the decompressed memory area)?
Lucas De Marchi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
