From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34A2DC433EF for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 19:58:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 190CE613B5 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 19:58:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235831AbhJEUAl (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Oct 2021 16:00:41 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:38040 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S235163AbhJEUAj (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Oct 2021 16:00:39 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-x635.google.com (mail-pl1-x635.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::635]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0FFAC06174E for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 12:58:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x635.google.com with SMTP id w14so219384pll.2 for ; Tue, 05 Oct 2021 12:58:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=m4F7KbIKLk052E6TxP0dKBCdgkUeYdYXEOD3CSUVTIM=; b=XniNzJtBFvHro/VDe66WdKX8l3Za6IBuWSuno6KT9zYxbIObQx4/GX0LtST1Dn0+4w 7KNbmA5IhdFz102EuOBTy9EJBhM9WpzMsz7QEHQK4OkIN8ggyeHsXK+xZi4niG+OJynC mcaeqHjTrmLl4hn5gr+PJKQQj2Kp203ryO25c= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=m4F7KbIKLk052E6TxP0dKBCdgkUeYdYXEOD3CSUVTIM=; b=IIOsZ8SmxpH7Uxy9SfSEa3Tubv2kylIzlcXMgHUJFBRnOaej5JZf68OCqRsE5Ox1wF ThZUhNvd41nN7dhmzgTUYY/VZRxwexsO/Lq9yA09Y4lqogRBiEPAlhWDWZP1gadvWpGK oCo9r/TQM2e43qbsR82/o1fQ5ec+Iys9qVYReY6FKVfwF0u5Gu98PnqOuBm4RdTlTBFb McPjhLwDlxmZ3vXXQR0nUCnvzLfHybJS91U+ICSBo0xYld2dBhoM0eUK564PTHbpu7mk +8TpT4uCYbVTegyD9VsJ/VNhUB9ngJY3W8YJnM9HxDdzIcIAFJLpPvGxdCcZ6F9TlJEe J+bA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531GjuB0ocZdQsQFjiNf0TncQ8Lznqk2I/nwF1JrTneWpDA+Ezef 1V7pj6RTl+vgpN91dFcqcqHgDw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyIVFMeXSk93lanHtPKT4spKueaCZvq6pzod9uEteRYiTnP6Xzri6pyKEkb7SQhAsGmyRZgXw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:19d2:: with SMTP id 18mr6010010pjj.122.1633463928380; Tue, 05 Oct 2021 12:58:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.outflux.net (smtp.outflux.net. [198.145.64.163]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 23sm2915094pjc.37.2021.10.05.12.58.47 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 05 Oct 2021 12:58:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2021 12:58:47 -0700 From: Kees Cook To: Luis Chamberlain Cc: tj@kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, minchan@kernel.org, jeyu@kernel.org, shuah@kernel.org, bvanassche@acm.org, dan.j.williams@intel.com, joe@perches.com, tglx@linutronix.de, rostedt@goodmis.org, linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 06/12] kernel/module: add documentation for try_module_get() Message-ID: <202110051252.790B3F2F0@keescook> References: <20210927163805.808907-1-mcgrof@kernel.org> <20210927163805.808907-7-mcgrof@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210927163805.808907-7-mcgrof@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 09:37:59AM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > There is quite a bit of tribal knowledge around proper use of > try_module_get() and that it must be used only in a context which > can ensure the module won't be gone during the operation. Document > this little bit of tribal knowledge. > > I'm extending this tribal knowledge with new developments which it > seems some folks do not yet believe to be true: we can be sure a > module will exist during the lifetime of a sysfs file operation. > For proof, refer to test_sysfs test #32: > > ./tools/testing/selftests/sysfs/sysfs.sh -t 0032 > > Without this being true, the write would fail or worse, > a crash would happen, in this test. It does not. > > Signed-off-by: Luis Chamberlain > --- > include/linux/module.h | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/module.h b/include/linux/module.h > index c9f1200b2312..22eacd5e1e85 100644 > --- a/include/linux/module.h > +++ b/include/linux/module.h > @@ -609,10 +609,40 @@ void symbol_put_addr(void *addr); > to handle the error case (which only happens with rmmod --wait). */ > extern void __module_get(struct module *module); > > -/* This is the Right Way to get a module: if it fails, it's being removed, > - * so pretend it's not there. */ > +/** > + * try_module_get() - yields to module removal and bumps refcnt otherwise I find this hard to parse. How about: "Take module refcount unless module is being removed" > + * @module: the module we should check for > + * > + * This can be used to try to bump the reference count of a module, so to > + * prevent module removal. The reference count of a module is not allowed > + * to be incremented if the module is already being removed. This I understand. > + * > + * Care must be taken to ensure the module cannot be removed during the call to > + * try_module_get(). This can be done by having another entity other than the > + * module itself increment the module reference count, or through some other > + * means which guarantees the module could not be removed during an operation. > + * An example of this later case is using try_module_get() in a sysfs file > + * which the module created. The sysfs store / read file operations are > + * gauranteed to exist through the use of kernfs's active reference (see > + * kernfs_active()). If a sysfs file operation is being run, the module which > + * created it must still exist as the module is in charge of removing the same > + * sysfs file being read. Also, a sysfs / kernfs file removal cannot happen > + * unless the same file is not active. I can't understand this paragraph at all. "Care must be taken ..."? Why? Shouldn't callers of try_module_get() be satisfied with the results? I don't follow the example at all. It seems to just say "sysfs store/read functions don't need try_module_get() because whatever opened the sysfs file is already keeping the module referenced." ? > + * > + * One of the real values to try_module_get() is the module_is_live() check > + * which ensures this the caller of try_module_get() can yield to userspace > + * module removal requests and fail whatever it was about to process. Please document the return value explicitly. > + */ > extern bool try_module_get(struct module *module); > > +/** > + * module_put() - release a reference count to a module > + * @module: the module we should release a reference count for > + * > + * If you successfully bump a reference count to a module with try_module_get(), > + * when you are finished you must call module_put() to release that reference > + * count. > + */ > extern void module_put(struct module *module); > > #else /*!CONFIG_MODULE_UNLOAD*/ > -- > 2.30.2 > -- Kees Cook