[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] livepatch: refuse to resolve symbols that belong to init sections
On 22.04.2024 09:54, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 04:34:41PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 19.04.2024 12:50, Roger Pau Monné wrote: >>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 12:15:19PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 19.04.2024 12:02, Roger Pau Monne wrote: >>>>> Livepatch payloads containing symbols that belong to init sections can >>>>> only >>>>> lead to page faults later on, as by the time the livepatch is loaded init >>>>> sections have already been freed. >>>>> >>>>> Refuse to resolve such symbols and return an error instead. >>>>> >>>>> Note such resolutions are only relevant for symbols that point to >>>>> undefined >>>>> sections (SHN_UNDEF), as that implies the symbol is not in the current >>>>> payload >>>>> and hence must either be a Xen or a different livepatch payload symbol. >>>>> >>>>> Do not allow to resolve symbols that point to __init_begin, as that >>>>> address is >>>>> also unmapped. On the other hand, __init_end is not unmapped, and hence >>>>> allow >>>>> resolutions against it. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> --- >>>>> Changes since v1: >>>>> - Fix off-by-one in range checking. >>>> >>>> Which means you addressed Andrew's comment while at the same time extending >>>> the scope of ... >>>> >>>>> @@ -310,6 +311,21 @@ int livepatch_elf_resolve_symbols(struct >>>>> livepatch_elf *elf) >>>>> break; >>>>> } >>>>> } >>>>> + >>>>> + /* >>>>> + * Ensure not an init symbol. Only applicable to Xen >>>>> symbols, as >>>>> + * livepatch payloads don't have init sections or equivalent. >>>>> + */ >>>>> + else if ( st_value >= (uintptr_t)&__init_begin && >>>>> + st_value < (uintptr_t)&__init_end ) >>>>> + { >>>>> + printk(XENLOG_ERR LIVEPATCH >>>>> + "%s: symbol %s is in init section, not >>>>> resolving\n", >>>>> + elf->name, elf->sym[i].name); >>>> >>>> ... what I raised concern about (and I had not seen any verbal reply to >>>> that, >>>> I don't think). >>> >>> I've extended the commit message to explicitly mention the handling of >>> bounds for __init_{begin,end} checks. Let me know if you are not fine >>> with it (or maybe you expected something else?). >> >> Well, you mention the two symbols you care about, but you don't mention >> at all that these two may alias other symbols which might be legal to >> reference from a livepatch. > > I'm having a hard time understanding why a livepatch would want to > reference those, or any symbol in the .init sections for that matter. > __init_{begin,end} are exclusively used to unmap the init region after > boot. What's the point in livepatch referencing data that's no > longer there? The only application I would think of is to calculate > some kind of offsets, but that would better be done using other > symbols instead. > > Please bear with me, it would be easier for me to understand if you > could provide a concrete example. The issue is that you do comparison by address, not by name. Let's assume that .rodata ends exactly where .init.* starts. Then &__init_begin == &_erodata == &__2M_rodata_end. Access to the latter two symbols wants to be permitted; only __init_begin and whatever ends up being the very first symbol in .init.* ought to not be referenced. Worse (but contrived) would be cases of "constructed" symbols derived from ones ahead of __init_begin, with an offset large enough to actually point into .init.*. Such are _still_ valid to be used in calculations, as long as no deref occurs for anything at or past __init_begin. Jan
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |