On Sat Nov 9, 2024 at 11:35 AM CET, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> To be on the safe side, try to set ro_after_init data section readonly
> at the same time as rodata. If it fails it will likely fail again
> later so let's cancel module loading while we still can do it.
> If it doesn't fail, put it back to read-only, continue module loading
I think you mean put it back to rw?
> and cross fingers so that it still works after module init. Then it
> should in principle never fail so add a WARN_ON_ONCE() to get a big
> fat warning in case it happens anyway.
I agree this is the best we can do. But I don't think there's any
guarantee that we won't fail on the second try?
>
> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> kernel/module/main.c | 2 +-
> kernel/module/strict_rwx.c | 5 ++++-
> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/module/main.c b/kernel/module/main.c
> index 1bf4b0db291b..b603c9647e73 100644
> --- a/kernel/module/main.c
> +++ b/kernel/module/main.c
> @@ -2582,7 +2582,7 @@ static noinline int do_init_module(struct module *mod)
> rcu_assign_pointer(mod->kallsyms, &mod->core_kallsyms);
> #endif
> ret = module_enable_rodata_ro_after_init(mod);
> - if (ret)
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(ret))
> pr_warn("%s: %s() returned %d, ro_after_init data might still be writable\n",
> mod->name, __func__, ret);
>
> diff --git a/kernel/module/strict_rwx.c b/kernel/module/strict_rwx.c
> index f68c59974ae2..329afd43f06b 100644
> --- a/kernel/module/strict_rwx.c
> +++ b/kernel/module/strict_rwx.c
> @@ -58,7 +58,10 @@ int module_enable_rodata_ro(const struct module *mod)
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> - return 0;
> + ret = module_set_memory(mod, MOD_RO_AFTER_INIT, set_memory_ro);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> + return module_set_memory(mod, MOD_RO_AFTER_INIT, set_memory_rw);
> }
>
> int module_enable_rodata_ro_after_init(const struct module *mod)
