Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190204220952.30761-1-TheSven73@googlemail.com> <CAGXu5jJ0g1FUd3mX=RkJCN=BazaWWybAuapvjngpLcWtz3FQGw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5jJ0g1FUd3mX=RkJCN=BazaWWybAuapvjngpLcWtz3FQGw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 5 Feb 2019 10:22:50 -0500
Message-ID: <CAGngYiUsq55EUKa0rYCeQ62VanhwNUxs-pfkJxUwqd4HO3m-Lg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v1 0/3] Address potential user-after-free on module unload
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc:     Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Sebastian Reichel <sre@kernel.org>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 9:57 AM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>
>
> Can a Coccinelle script get written to find module-use of the non-devm
> work init?

My thoughts exactly ! But sadly I'm not a Coccinelle expert. I did
look briefly at
its syntax, but I didn't immediately "get" how Cocci could find this class of
errors, without a huge false positive rate (which would make it worse than
useless).

>
> It seems like finding these in __init functions should be relatively
> easy? (Or can we add runtime detection in the existing INIT_*WORK()
> code to see if it is running from the wrong place?)
>

IMHO the problem isn't that they're called from __init functions.
Also, nothing is
wrong with the location of INIT_*WORK per se.

The real problem is that developers overlook calling cancel_work_sync()
on unload. I'm not sure how we could bolt on runtime detection to catch
a *missing* function. Again, without causing tons of false positives.