On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 4:33 PM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 10:51:47AM -0700, Song Liu wrote:
> > From: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@xxxxxxx>
> >
> > Josh reported a bug:
> >
> > When the object to be patched is a module, and that module is
> > rmmod'ed and reloaded, it fails to load with:
> >
> > module: x86/modules: Skipping invalid relocation target, existing value is nonzero for type 2, loc 00000000ba0302e9, val ffffffffa03e293c
> > livepatch: failed to initialize patch 'livepatch_nfsd' for module 'nfsd' (-8)
> > livepatch: patch 'livepatch_nfsd' failed for module 'nfsd', refusing to load module 'nfsd'
> >
> > The livepatch module has a relocation which references a symbol
> > in the _previous_ loading of nfsd. When apply_relocate_add()
> > tries to replace the old relocation with a new one, it sees that
> > the previous one is nonzero and it errors out.
> >
> > On ppc64le, we have a similar issue:
> >
> > module_64: livepatch_nfsd: Expected nop after call, got e8410018 at e_show+0x60/0x548 [livepatch_nfsd]
> > livepatch: failed to initialize patch 'livepatch_nfsd' for module 'nfsd' (-8)
> > livepatch: patch 'livepatch_nfsd' failed for module 'nfsd', refusing to load module 'nfsd'
> >
> > He also proposed three different solutions. We could remove the error
> > check in apply_relocate_add() introduced by commit eda9cec4c9a1
> > ("x86/module: Detect and skip invalid relocations"). However the check
> > is useful for detecting corrupted modules.
> >
> > We could also deny the patched modules to be removed. If it proved to be
> > a major drawback for users, we could still implement a different
> > approach. The solution would also complicate the existing code a lot.
> >
> > We thus decided to reverse the relocation patching (clear all relocation
> > targets on x86_64). The solution is not
> > universal and is too much arch-specific, but it may prove to be simpler
> > in the end.
> >
> > Reported-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@xxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Song Liu <song@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Changes from v2:
> > 1. Rewrite x86 changes to match current code style.
> > 2. Remove powerpc changes as there is no test coverage in v3.
> > 3. Only keep 1/3 of v2.
>
> 1) All the copy/paste is ugly and IMO guaranteed to eventually introduce
> bugs when somebody forgets to update the copy. Wouldn't it be more
> robust to reuse the existing apply_relocate_add() code by making it
> more generic somehow, like with a new 'clear' bool arg which sets
> 'val' to zero?
Agreed. I can give it a try.
>
> 2) We can't only fix x86, powerpc also needs a fix.
I have very little experience with powerpc. Would someone be willing to
help with powerpc part of this?
> 3) A selftest would be a good idea.
I will try this.
Thanks,
Song
