Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 15 Jun 2021 07:50:57 -0500
From:   Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
To:     Jessica Yu <jeyu@kernel.org>
Cc:     Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Such=E1nek?= <msuchanek@suse.de>,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] module: add elf_check_module_arch for module specific elf arch checks
Message-ID: <20210615125057.GF5077@gate.crashing.org>
References: <20210611093959.821525-1-npiggin@gmail.com> <20210611093959.821525-2-npiggin@gmail.com> <YMdGWjBOmcstBwOl@p200300cbcf109700df096d564fe976c3.dip0.t-ipconnect.de> <1623722110.amu32mwaqs.astroid@bobo.none> <YMiaZOqhHck9iy0n@p200300cbcf109700df096d564fe976c3.dip0.t-ipconnect.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YMiaZOqhHck9iy0n@p200300cbcf109700df096d564fe976c3.dip0.t-ipconnect.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 02:17:40PM +0200, Jessica Yu wrote:
> +int __weak elf_check_module_arch(Elf_Ehdr *hdr)
> +{
> +       return 1;
> +}

But is this a good idea?  It isn't useful to be able to attempt to load
a module not compiled for your architecture, and it increases the attack
surface tremendously.  These checks are one of the few things that can
*not* be weak symbols, imo.


Segher