Re: [PATCH] Revert "x86/module: Detect and skip invalid relocations"
From: Josh Poimboeuf <hidden>
Date: 2019-06-25 03:31:36
Also in:
lkml
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 12:00:33PM +0200, Miroslav Benes wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jun 2019, Thomas Gleixner wrote:quoted
Miroslav, On Thu, 20 Jun 2019, Miroslav Benes wrote:quoted
On Thu, 20 Jun 2019, Cheng Jian wrote:quoted
This reverts commit eda9cec4c9a12208a6f69fbe68f72a6311d50032. Since commit (eda9cec4c9a1 'x86/module: Detect and skip invalid relocations') add some sanity check in apply_relocate_add, borke re-insmod a kernel module which has been patched before, The relocation informations of the livepatch module have been overwritten since first patched, so if we rmmod and insmod the kernel module, these values are not zero anymore, when klp_module_coming doing, and that commit marks them as invalid invalid_relocation. Then the following error occurs: module: x86/modules: Skipping invalid relocation target, existing value is nonzero for type 2, loc (____ptrval____), val ffffffffc000236c livepatch: failed to initialize patch 'livepatch_0001_test' for module 'test' (-8) livepatch: patch 'livepatch_0001_test' failed for module 'test', refusing to load module 'test'Oh yeah. First reported here 20180602161151.apuhs2dygsexmcg2@treble (LP ML only and there is no archive on lore.kernel.org yet. Sorry about that.). I posted v1 here https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180607092949.1706-1-mbenes@suse.cz/ (local) and even started to work on v2 in March with arch-specific nullifying, but then I got sidetracked again. I'll move it up my todo list a bit.so we need to revert it for now, right?Not necessarily. Quoting Josh from the original bug report: "Possible ways to fix it: 1) Remove the error check in apply_relocate_add(). I don't think we should do this, because the error is actually useful for detecting corrupt modules. And also, powerpc has the similar error so this wouldn't be a universal solution. 2) In klp_unpatch_object(), call an arch-specific arch_unpatch_object() which reverses any arch-specific patching: on x86, clearing all relocation targets to zero; on powerpc, converting the instructions after relative link branches to nops. I don't think we should do this because it's not a global solution and requires fidgety arch-specific patching code. 3) Don't allow patched modules to be removed. I think this makes the most sense. Nobody needs this functionality anyway (right?). " 1 would be the revert. We decided against it. The scenario (rmmod a module) is (supposedly) not that common in practice. Even the current bug report was triggered just in testing if I am not mistaken. Moreover, you need kpatch-build to properly set up relocation records. Upstream livepatch does not offer it as of now. That's why (I think) Josh thought the benefits of the check outweighed the disadvantage. Then I tried to implement 3, but there were problems with it too. 2 remains to be finished and then we can decide what the best approach is. That being said... I am not against the reverting the commit per se, but we lived with it or quite a long time and no one has met it so far in "real life". I don't think it is the classic "we broke something, we have to revert" scenario. Josh, any comment? I think your opinion matters here much more than mine.
Agreed, as far as I know the problem is purely theoretical and we haven't seen any real-world bug reports, because people aren't reloading patched modules in the real world. If we were to revert the error checks in apply_relocate_add() then it could expose us to real-world regressions (which we have actually seen in the past). So I would vote to leave the error checks in place, at least until it becomes a real-world issue. And in the meantime hopefully you can finish implementing #2 or #3 soon :-) -- Josh