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 14:53:37 +0200
From:   Jessica Yu <jeyu@kernel.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        keescook@chromium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] module: Harden STRICT_MODULE_RWX
Message-ID: <20200406125336.GA21006@linux-8ccs>
References: <20200403163716.GV20730@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20200403165631.hrxxm3pnzqa4vxln@treble>
 <alpine.LSU.2.21.2004061146590.26870@pobox.suse.cz>
 <20200406104615.GA9629@linux-8ccs>
 <20200406112732.GK20730@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200406112732.GK20730@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

+++ Peter Zijlstra [06/04/20 13:27 +0200]:
>On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 12:46:17PM +0200, Jessica Yu wrote:
>> +++ Miroslav Benes [06/04/20 11:55 +0200]:
>> > 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.
>>
>> That's right - move_module() ignores !SHF_ALLOC sections and does not
>> copy them over to their final location. So I think we want to look for
>> SHF_EXECINSTR|SHF_WRITE|SHF_ALLOC here..
>
>So I did notice that !SHF_ALLOC sections get ignored, but since this
>check is about W^X we don't strictly care about SHF_ALLOC. What we care
>about it never allowing a writable and executable map.
>
>Adding ALLOC to the test only allows for future mistakes and doesn't
>make the check any better.

Ugh sorry, my brain shorted out and for some reason I mistakenly
thought the check excluded SHF_WRITE|SHF_EXECINSTR|SHF_ALLOC sections.
It doesn't obviously. Sorry for the noise.