On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 03:41:00PM +0200, Jessica Yu wrote:
> +++ Segher Boessenkool [15/06/21 07:50 -0500]:
> >On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 02:17:40PM +0200, Jessica Yu wrote:
> >>+int __weak elf_check_module_arch(Elf_Ehdr *hdr)
> >>+{
> >>+ return 1;
> >>+}
> >
> >But is this a good idea? It isn't useful to be able to attempt to load
> >a module not compiled for your architecture, and it increases the attack
> >surface tremendously. These checks are one of the few things that can
> >*not* be weak symbols, imo.
>
> Hm, could you please elaborate a bit more? This patchset is adding
> extra Elf header checks specifically for powerpc, and the module
> loader usually provides arch-specific hooks via weak symbols. We are
> just providing an new hook here, which should act as a no-op if it
> isn't used.
>
> So if an architecture wants to provide extra header checks, it can do
> so by overriding the new weak symbol. Otherwise, the weak function acts as
> a noop. We also already have the existing elf_check_arch() check for each
> arch and that is *not* a weak symbol.
The way I read your patch the default elf_check_module_arch does not
call elf_check_arch? Is that clearly called elsewhere and I'm just
dumb again? Sorry for the distraction in that case :-/
Segher
