Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH net-next] modules: allow modprobe load regular elf binaries | From | Alexei Starovoitov <> | Date | Thu, 8 Mar 2018 15:07:01 -0800 |
| |
On 3/7/18 5:23 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > request_module() has its own world though too. How often in your proof of > concept is request_module() called? How many times do you envision it being > called?
once.
>> +static int run_umh(struct file *file) >> +{ >> + struct subprocess_info *sub_info = call_usermodehelper_setup_file(file); >> + >> + if (!sub_info) >> + return -ENOMEM; >> + return call_usermodehelper_exec(sub_info, UMH_WAIT_EXEC); >> +} > > run_umh() calls the program and waits. Note that while we are running a UMH we > can't suspend. What if they take forever, who is hosing them down with an > equivalent: > > schedule(); > try_to_freeze(); > > Say they are buggy and never return, will they stall suspend, have you tried? > > call_usermodehelper_exec() uses helper_lock() which in turn is used for > umh's accounting for number of running umh's. One of the sad obscure uses > for this is to deal with suspend/resume. Refer to __usermodehelper* calls > on kernel/power/process.c > > Note how you use UMH_WAIT_EXEC too, so this is all synchronous.
looks like you misread this code and the rest of your concerns with suspend/resume are not applicable any more.
#define UMH_NO_WAIT 0 /* don't wait at all */ #define UMH_WAIT_EXEC 1 /* wait for the exec, but not the process */ #define UMH_WAIT_PROC 2 /* wait for the process to complete */ #define UMH_KILLABLE 4 /* wait for EXEC/PROC killable */
bpftiler.ko is started once and runs non-stop from there on. Unless it crashes, but it's a different discussion.
>> + if (info->hdr->e_type == ET_EXEC) { >> +#ifdef CONFIG_MODULE_SIG >> + if (!info->sig_ok) { >> + pr_notice_once("umh %s verification failed: signature and/or required key missing - tainting kernel\n", >> + info->file->f_path.dentry->d_name.name); >> + add_taint(TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE, LOCKDEP_STILL_OK); >> + } >> +#endif > > So I guess this check is done *after* run_umh() then, what about the enforce mode, > don't we want to reject loading at all in any circumstance?
already answered this twice in the thread.
| |