Re: set_memory_* (was: Re: BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request in bpf_int_jit_compile)

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Daniel Borkmann [off-list ref] wrote:

In any case, for pairs like set_memory_ro() + set_memory_rw() that are also used
outside of bpf e.g. STRICT_MODULE_RWX and friends which are mostly default these
days for some archs, is the choice to not check errors from there by design or from
historical context that it originated from 'debugging code' in that sense (DEBUG_RODATA /
DEBUG_SET_MODULE_RONX) earlier? Also if no-one checks for errors (and if that would
infact be the recommendation it is agreed upon) should the API be changed to void,
or generally should actual error checking occur on these + potential rollback; but
then question is what about restoring part from prior set_memory_ro() via set_memory_rw()?
Kees/others, do you happen to have some more context on recommended use around this
by any chance? (Would probably also help if we add some doc around assumptions into
include/linux/set_memory.h for future users.)

If set_memory_* can fail, I think it needs to be __must_check, and all
the callers need to deal with it gracefully. Those markings aren't
"advisory": they're expected to actually do what they say.

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security