[PATCH v4 0/2] module: Introduce module unload taint tracking

[PATCH v4 0/2] module: Introduce module unload taint tracking

[Aaron Tomlin]

Hi Luis,

This iteration is still based on the latest mcgrof/modules-next branch.

I have decided still to use RCU even though no entry is ever removed from
the unloaded tainted modules list. That being said, if I understand
correctly, it is not safe in some instances to use 'module_mutex' in
print_modules().  So instead we disable preemption to ensure list traversal
with concurrent list manipulation e.g. list_add_rcu(), is safe too.

Changes since v3 [1]
 - Fixed kernel build error reported by kernel test robot i.e. moved
   '#endif' outside 'if (!list_empty(&unloaded_tainted_modules))'
   statement in the context of print_modules()
 - Used strncmp() instead of memcmp()
   (Oleksandr Natalenko)
 - Removed the additional strlen()
   (Christoph Lameter)

Changes since v2 [2]
 - Dropped RFC from subject
 - Removed the newline i.e. "\n" in printk()
 - Always include the tainted module's unload count
 - Unconditionally display each unloaded tainted module

Please let me know your thoughts.

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220420115257.3498300-1-atomlin@redhat.com/
[2]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220419150334.3395019-1-atomlin@redhat.com/


Aaron Tomlin (2):
  module: Make module_flags_taint() accept a module's taints bitmap
    directly
  module: Introduce module unload taint tracking

 init/Kconfig         | 11 +++++++
 kernel/module/main.c | 73 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
 2 files changed, 80 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)


base-commit: eeaec7801c421e17edda6e45a32d4a5596b633da
-- 
2.34.1

[PATCH v4 1/2] module: Make module_flags_taint() accept a module's taints bitmap directly

[Aaron Tomlin]

No functional change.

The purpose of this patch is to modify module_flags_taint() to accept a
module's taints bitmap as a parameter and modifies all users accordingly.
This is in preparation for module unload taint tracking support.

Signed-off-by: Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@redhat.com>
---
 kernel/module/main.c | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/module/main.c b/kernel/module/main.c
index 05a42d8fcd7a..ea78cec316dd 100644
--- a/kernel/module/main.c
+++ b/kernel/module/main.c
@@ -890,13 +890,13 @@ static inline int module_unload_init(struct module *mod)
 }
 #endif /* CONFIG_MODULE_UNLOAD */
 
-static size_t module_flags_taint(struct module *mod, char *buf)
+static size_t module_flags_taint(unsigned long taints, char *buf)
 {
 	size_t l = 0;
 	int i;
 
 	for (i = 0; i < TAINT_FLAGS_COUNT; i++) {
-		if (taint_flags[i].module && test_bit(i, &mod->taints))
+		if (taint_flags[i].module && test_bit(i, &taints))
 			buf[l++] = taint_flags[i].c_true;
 	}
 
@@ -974,7 +974,7 @@ static ssize_t show_taint(struct module_attribute *mattr,
 {
 	size_t l;
 
-	l = module_flags_taint(mk->mod, buffer);
+	l = module_flags_taint(mk->mod->taints, buffer);
 	buffer[l++] = '\n';
 	return l;
 }
@@ -2993,7 +2993,7 @@ char *module_flags(struct module *mod, char *buf)
 	    mod->state == MODULE_STATE_GOING ||
 	    mod->state == MODULE_STATE_COMING) {
 		buf[bx++] = '(';
-		bx += module_flags_taint(mod, buf + bx);
+		bx += module_flags_taint(mod->taints, buf + bx);
 		/* Show a - for module-is-being-unloaded */
 		if (mod->state == MODULE_STATE_GOING)
 			buf[bx++] = '-';
-- 
2.34.1

[PATCH v4 2/2] module: Introduce module unload taint tracking

[Aaron Tomlin]

Currently, only the initial module that tainted the kernel is
recorded e.g. when an out-of-tree module is loaded.

The purpose of this patch is to allow the kernel to maintain a record of
each unloaded module that taints the kernel. So, in addition to
displaying a list of linked modules (see print_modules()) e.g. in the
event of a detected bad page, unloaded modules that carried a taint/or
taints are displayed too. A tainted module unload count is maintained.

The number of tracked modules is not fixed. This feature is disabled by
default.

Signed-off-by: Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@redhat.com>
---
 init/Kconfig         | 11 ++++++++
 kernel/module/main.c | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 76 insertions(+)

diff --git a/init/Kconfig b/init/Kconfig
index ddcbefe535e9..6b30210f787d 100644
--- a/init/Kconfig
+++ b/init/Kconfig
@@ -2118,6 +2118,17 @@ config MODULE_FORCE_UNLOAD
 	  rmmod).  This is mainly for kernel developers and desperate users.
 	  If unsure, say N.
 
+config MODULE_UNLOAD_TAINT_TRACKING
+	bool "Tainted module unload tracking"
+	depends on MODULE_UNLOAD
+	default n
+	help
+	  This option allows you to maintain a record of each unloaded
+	  module that tainted the kernel. In addition to displaying a
+	  list of linked (or loaded) modules e.g. on detection of a bad
+	  page (see bad_page()), the aforementioned details are also
+	  shown. If unsure, say N.
+
 config MODVERSIONS
 	bool "Module versioning support"
 	help
diff --git a/kernel/module/main.c b/kernel/module/main.c
index ea78cec316dd..35686e63b32f 100644
--- a/kernel/module/main.c
+++ b/kernel/module/main.c
@@ -68,6 +68,16 @@
  */
 DEFINE_MUTEX(module_mutex);
 LIST_HEAD(modules);
+#ifdef CONFIG_MODULE_UNLOAD_TAINT_TRACKING
+static LIST_HEAD(unloaded_tainted_modules);
+
+struct mod_unload_taint {
+	struct list_head list;
+	char name[MODULE_NAME_LEN];
+	unsigned long taints;
+	u64 count;
+};
+#endif
 
 /* Work queue for freeing init sections in success case */
 static void do_free_init(struct work_struct *w);
@@ -150,6 +160,41 @@ int unregister_module_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb)
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(unregister_module_notifier);
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_MODULE_UNLOAD_TAINT_TRACKING
+static int try_add_tainted_module(struct module *mod)
+{
+	struct mod_unload_taint *mod_taint;
+
+	module_assert_mutex_or_preempt();
+
+	list_for_each_entry_rcu(mod_taint, &unloaded_tainted_modules, list,
+				lockdep_is_held(&module_mutex)) {
+		size_t len = strlen(mod_taint->name);
+
+		if (!strncmp(mod_taint->name, mod->name, len) &&
+		    mod_taint->taints & mod->taints) {
+			mod_taint->count++;
+			goto out;
+		}
+	}
+
+	mod_taint = kmalloc(sizeof(*mod_taint), GFP_KERNEL);
+	if (unlikely(!mod_taint))
+		return -ENOMEM;
+	strscpy(mod_taint->name, mod->name, MODULE_NAME_LEN);
+	mod_taint->taints = mod->taints;
+	list_add_rcu(&mod_taint->list, &unloaded_tainted_modules);
+	mod_taint->count = 1;
+out:
+	return 0;
+}
+#else /* MODULE_UNLOAD_TAINT_TRACKING */
+static int try_add_tainted_module(struct module *mod)
+{
+	return 0;
+}
+#endif
+
 /*
  * We require a truly strong try_module_get(): 0 means success.
  * Otherwise an error is returned due to ongoing or failed
@@ -1201,6 +1246,9 @@ static void free_module(struct module *mod)
 	module_bug_cleanup(mod);
 	/* Wait for RCU-sched synchronizing before releasing mod->list and buglist. */
 	synchronize_rcu();
+	if (try_add_tainted_module(mod))
+		pr_err("%s: adding tainted module to the unloaded tainted modules list failed.\n",
+		       mod->name);
 	mutex_unlock(&module_mutex);
 
 	/* Clean up CFI for the module. */
@@ -3126,6 +3174,9 @@ struct module *__module_text_address(unsigned long addr)
 void print_modules(void)
 {
 	struct module *mod;
+#ifdef CONFIG_MODULE_UNLOAD_TAINT_TRACKING
+	struct mod_unload_taint *mod_taint;
+#endif
 	char buf[MODULE_FLAGS_BUF_SIZE];
 
 	printk(KERN_DEFAULT "Modules linked in:");
@@ -3136,6 +3187,20 @@ void print_modules(void)
 			continue;
 		pr_cont(" %s%s", mod->name, module_flags(mod, buf));
 	}
+#ifdef CONFIG_MODULE_UNLOAD_TAINT_TRACKING
+	if (!list_empty(&unloaded_tainted_modules)) {
+		printk(KERN_DEFAULT "Unloaded tainted modules:");
+		list_for_each_entry_rcu(mod_taint, &unloaded_tainted_modules,
+					list) {
+			size_t l;
+
+			l = module_flags_taint(mod_taint->taints, buf);
+			buf[l++] = '\0';
+			pr_cont(" %s(%s):%llu", mod_taint->name, buf,
+				mod_taint->count);
+		}
+	}
+#endif
 	preempt_enable();
 	if (last_unloaded_module[0])
 		pr_cont(" [last unloaded: %s]", last_unloaded_module);
-- 
2.34.1

Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] module: Introduce module unload taint tracking

[Christophe Leroy]

Le 25/04/2022 à 11:08, Aaron Tomlin a écrit :
> Currently, only the initial module that tainted the kernel is
> recorded e.g. when an out-of-tree module is loaded.
> 
> The purpose of this patch is to allow the kernel to maintain a record of
> each unloaded module that taints the kernel. So, in addition to
> displaying a list of linked modules (see print_modules()) e.g. in the
> event of a detected bad page, unloaded modules that carried a taint/or
> taints are displayed too. A tainted module unload count is maintained.
> 
> The number of tracked modules is not fixed. This feature is disabled by
> default.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@redhat.com>
> ---
>   init/Kconfig         | 11 ++++++++
>   kernel/module/main.c | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   2 files changed, 76 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/init/Kconfig b/init/Kconfig
> index ddcbefe535e9..6b30210f787d 100644
> --- a/init/Kconfig
> +++ b/init/Kconfig
> @@ -2118,6 +2118,17 @@ config MODULE_FORCE_UNLOAD
>   	  rmmod).  This is mainly for kernel developers and desperate users.
>   	  If unsure, say N.
>   
> +config MODULE_UNLOAD_TAINT_TRACKING
> +	bool "Tainted module unload tracking"
> +	depends on MODULE_UNLOAD
> +	default n
> +	help
> +	  This option allows you to maintain a record of each unloaded
> +	  module that tainted the kernel. In addition to displaying a
> +	  list of linked (or loaded) modules e.g. on detection of a bad
> +	  page (see bad_page()), the aforementioned details are also
> +	  shown. If unsure, say N.
> +
>   config MODVERSIONS
>   	bool "Module versioning support"
>   	help
> diff --git a/kernel/module/main.c b/kernel/module/main.c
> index ea78cec316dd..35686e63b32f 100644
> --- a/kernel/module/main.c
> +++ b/kernel/module/main.c
> @@ -68,6 +68,16 @@
>    */
>   DEFINE_MUTEX(module_mutex);
>   LIST_HEAD(modules);
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MODULE_UNLOAD_TAINT_TRACKING
> +static LIST_HEAD(unloaded_tainted_modules);
> +
> +struct mod_unload_taint {
> +	struct list_head list;
> +	char name[MODULE_NAME_LEN];
> +	unsigned long taints;
> +	u64 count;
> +};
> +#endif
>   
>   /* Work queue for freeing init sections in success case */
>   static void do_free_init(struct work_struct *w);
> @@ -150,6 +160,41 @@ int unregister_module_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb)
>   }
>   EXPORT_SYMBOL(unregister_module_notifier);
>   
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MODULE_UNLOAD_TAINT_TRACKING
> +static int try_add_tainted_module(struct module *mod)
> +{
> +	struct mod_unload_taint *mod_taint;
> +
> +	module_assert_mutex_or_preempt();
> +
> +	list_for_each_entry_rcu(mod_taint, &unloaded_tainted_modules, list,
> +				lockdep_is_held(&module_mutex)) {
> +		size_t len = strlen(mod_taint->name);

Why do you need that strlen() at all, can't you just use strcmp() ?

With strncmp() what happens if for instance mod_taint->name is "dead" 
and mod->name is "deadbeef" ?

> +
> +		if (!strncmp(mod_taint->name, mod->name, len) &&
> +		    mod_taint->taints & mod->taints) {
> +			mod_taint->count++;
> +			goto out;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	mod_taint = kmalloc(sizeof(*mod_taint), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (unlikely(!mod_taint))
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +	strscpy(mod_taint->name, mod->name, MODULE_NAME_LEN);
> +	mod_taint->taints = mod->taints;
> +	list_add_rcu(&mod_taint->list, &unloaded_tainted_modules);
> +	mod_taint->count = 1;
> +out:
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +#else /* MODULE_UNLOAD_TAINT_TRACKING */
> +static int try_add_tainted_module(struct module *mod)
> +{
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +#endif
> +
>   /*
>    * We require a truly strong try_module_get(): 0 means success.
>    * Otherwise an error is returned due to ongoing or failed
> @@ -1201,6 +1246,9 @@ static void free_module(struct module *mod)
>   	module_bug_cleanup(mod);
>   	/* Wait for RCU-sched synchronizing before releasing mod->list and buglist. */
>   	synchronize_rcu();
> +	if (try_add_tainted_module(mod))
> +		pr_err("%s: adding tainted module to the unloaded tainted modules list failed.\n",
> +		       mod->name);
>   	mutex_unlock(&module_mutex);
>   
>   	/* Clean up CFI for the module. */
> @@ -3126,6 +3174,9 @@ struct module *__module_text_address(unsigned long addr)
>   void print_modules(void)
>   {
>   	struct module *mod;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MODULE_UNLOAD_TAINT_TRACKING
> +	struct mod_unload_taint *mod_taint;
> +#endif
>   	char buf[MODULE_FLAGS_BUF_SIZE];
>   
>   	printk(KERN_DEFAULT "Modules linked in:");
> @@ -3136,6 +3187,20 @@ void print_modules(void)
>   			continue;
>   		pr_cont(" %s%s", mod->name, module_flags(mod, buf));
>   	}
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MODULE_UNLOAD_TAINT_TRACKING
> +	if (!list_empty(&unloaded_tainted_modules)) {
> +		printk(KERN_DEFAULT "Unloaded tainted modules:");
> +		list_for_each_entry_rcu(mod_taint, &unloaded_tainted_modules,
> +					list) {
> +			size_t l;
> +
> +			l = module_flags_taint(mod_taint->taints, buf);
> +			buf[l++] = '\0';
> +			pr_cont(" %s(%s):%llu", mod_taint->name, buf,
> +				mod_taint->count);
> +		}
> +	}
> +#endif
>   	preempt_enable();
>   	if (last_unloaded_module[0])
>   		pr_cont(" [last unloaded: %s]", last_unloaded_module);

Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] module: Introduce module unload taint tracking

[Aaron Tomlin]

On Mon 2022-05-02 11:07 +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> > @@ -150,6 +160,41 @@ int unregister_module_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb)
> >   }
> >   EXPORT_SYMBOL(unregister_module_notifier);
> >   
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_MODULE_UNLOAD_TAINT_TRACKING
> > +static int try_add_tainted_module(struct module *mod)
> > +{
> > +	struct mod_unload_taint *mod_taint;
> > +
> > +	module_assert_mutex_or_preempt();
> > +
> > +	list_for_each_entry_rcu(mod_taint, &unloaded_tainted_modules, list,
> > +				lockdep_is_held(&module_mutex)) {
> > +		size_t len = strlen(mod_taint->name);
> 
> Why do you need that strlen() at all, can't you just use strcmp() ?
> With strncmp() what happens if for instance mod_taint->name is "dead" 
> and mod->name is "deadbeef" ?

Hi Christophe,

Thanks for your feedback.

I see that. Furthermore, the length of a module's name is fixed.
Hence strcmp() should be fine.


Kind regards,

-- 
Aaron Tomlin

Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] module: Introduce module unload taint tracking

[Luis Chamberlain]

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 10:08:39AM +0100, Aaron Tomlin wrote:
> Hi Luis,
> 
> This iteration is still based on the latest mcgrof/modules-next branch.
> 
> I have decided still to use RCU even though no entry is ever removed from
> the unloaded tainted modules list. That being said, if I understand
> correctly, it is not safe in some instances to use 'module_mutex' in
> print_modules().  So instead we disable preemption to ensure list traversal
> with concurrent list manipulation e.g. list_add_rcu(), is safe too.
> 
> Changes since v3 [1]
>  - Fixed kernel build error reported by kernel test robot i.e. moved
>    '#endif' outside 'if (!list_empty(&unloaded_tainted_modules))'
>    statement in the context of print_modules()
>  - Used strncmp() instead of memcmp()
>    (Oleksandr Natalenko)
>  - Removed the additional strlen()
>    (Christoph Lameter)
> 
> Changes since v2 [2]
>  - Dropped RFC from subject
>  - Removed the newline i.e. "\n" in printk()
>  - Always include the tainted module's unload count
>  - Unconditionally display each unloaded tainted module
> 
> Please let me know your thoughts.

This all looks good except with all the work you did to remove
#ifdef hell, it gets me wondering why not just use a new file for this?

What does that look like?

  Luis

Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] module: Introduce module unload taint tracking

[Aaron Tomlin]

On Mon 2022-04-25 16:31 -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> This all looks good except with all the work you did to remove
> #ifdef hell, it gets me wondering why not just use a new file for this?
> 
> What does that look like?

Hi Luis,

I thought about it. It is indeed possible. Yet, I do not think it is worth
it, for such a small change; albeit, what do you prefer?


Kind regards,

-- 
Aaron Tomlin

Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] module: Introduce module unload taint tracking

[Luis Chamberlain]

On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 09:39:30AM +0100, Aaron Tomlin wrote:
> On Mon 2022-04-25 16:31 -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > This all looks good except with all the work you did to remove
> > #ifdef hell, it gets me wondering why not just use a new file for this?
> > 
> > What does that look like?
> 
> Hi Luis,
> 
> I thought about it. It is indeed possible. Yet, I do not think it is worth
> it, for such a small change; albeit, what do you prefer?

I'd rather see the effort than not, given all the effort to already split things.
I think it keeps things pretty tidy and it can scale / and its easier to review.

  Luis

Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] module: Introduce module unload taint tracking

[Aaron Tomlin]

On Tue 2022-04-26 09:22 -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> I'd rather see the effort than not, given all the effort to already split things.
> I think it keeps things pretty tidy and it can scale / and its easier to review.

Fair enough. I'll create another iteration of the series.

-- 
Aaron Tomlin