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;
Date:   Mon, 6 Apr 2020 11:55:39 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, jeyu@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        keescook@chromium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] module: Harden STRICT_MODULE_RWX
In-Reply-To: <20200403165631.hrxxm3pnzqa4vxln@treble>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.21.2004061146590.26870@pobox.suse.cz>
References: <20200403163716.GV20730@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20200403165631.hrxxm3pnzqa4vxln@treble>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LSU 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 3 Apr 2020, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 06:37:16PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > +{
> > +	int i;
> > +
> > +	for (i = 0; i < hdr->e_shnum; i++) {
> > +		if (sechdrs[i].sh_flags & (SHF_EXECINSTR|SHF_WRITE))
> > +			return -ENOEXEC;
> 
> I think you only want the error when both are set?
> 
> 		if (sechdrs[i].sh_flags & (SHF_EXECINSTR|SHF_WRITE) == (SHF_EXECINSTR|SHF_WRITE))

A section with SHF_EXECINSTR and SHF_WRITE but without SHF_ALLOC would be 
strange though, no? It wouldn't be copied to the final module later 
anyway.

Looking at layout_sections()... a section with 
SHF_EXECINSTR|SHF_WRITE|SHF_ALLOC would not be counted at all. However, 
move_module() later copies everything with SHF_ALLOC flag to the final 
module. If there is WXA section, there would be a bug because the 
allocation there would not get the correct size. In that case it is 
important to error out early as you're proposing.

Am I missing something?

Miroslav