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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28986C48BE8 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 12:54:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0B35613DB for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 12:54:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233090AbhFPM4Z (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jun 2021 08:56:25 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:57194 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232550AbhFPM4U (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jun 2021 08:56:20 -0400 Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7A58460FE9; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 12:54:13 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1623848054; bh=SqkEVoL/d0paKQjW7Uqto37QLMKGYT2IKLk8/Zjy4Js=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=UujjwgmD8hulbFX+3zvH5Iq198GGUn/7ynYUCfOOXILyDtcCT5S1uezjxP2XJId3l XN1Yd9AyHKcqM9NP6K2GLGk0ulScCjZJqbzQ4hAP5vBGnerdFRU9IpW9u7e64rUQ2M UWmFlhZMIFcz2pfBNagTNGcNofffiA0Ttm0RAMt+OOcTH07cvbND1ohX7jgBcrglGR zMy4+Ih2wt+qNpRY1q08yXhpB2YzFEpRe4wOAreiNaGM9ILAAepiuKYpegji22dETk EpVcXeG9vPjYIIszJx+nDuDydnAa1lvZ4mPJ0/WVK6ESm82+aTdEYvYYJWD/CrurnV S3QhlV8iEa0xw== Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 14:54:10 +0200 From: Jessica Yu To: Nicholas Piggin Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Michael Ellerman , Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Such=E1nek?= Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] module: add elf_check_module_arch for module specific elf arch checks Message-ID: References: <20210611093959.821525-1-npiggin@gmail.com> <20210611093959.821525-2-npiggin@gmail.com> <1623722110.amu32mwaqs.astroid@bobo.none> <1623805495.qdikm5ks8v.astroid@bobo.none> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1623805495.qdikm5ks8v.astroid@bobo.none> X-OS: Linux linux.fritz.box 5.12.9-1-default x86_64 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org +++ Nicholas Piggin [16/06/21 11:18 +1000]: >Excerpts from Jessica Yu's message of June 15, 2021 10:17 pm: >> +++ Nicholas Piggin [15/06/21 12:05 +1000]: >>>Excerpts from Jessica Yu's message of June 14, 2021 10:06 pm: >>>> +++ Nicholas Piggin [11/06/21 19:39 +1000]: >>>>>The elf_check_arch() function is used to test usermode binaries, but >>>>>kernel modules may have more specific requirements. powerpc would like >>>>>to test for ABI version compatibility. >>>>> >>>>>Add an arch-overridable function elf_check_module_arch() that defaults >>>>>to elf_check_arch() and use it in elf_validity_check(). >>>>> >>>>>Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman >>>>>[np: split patch, added changelog] >>>>>Signed-off-by: Nicholas Piggin >>>>>--- >>>>> include/linux/moduleloader.h | 5 +++++ >>>>> kernel/module.c | 2 +- >>>>> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>> >>>>>diff --git a/include/linux/moduleloader.h b/include/linux/moduleloader.h >>>>>index 9e09d11ffe5b..fdc042a84562 100644 >>>>>--- a/include/linux/moduleloader.h >>>>>+++ b/include/linux/moduleloader.h >>>>>@@ -13,6 +13,11 @@ >>>>> * must be implemented by each architecture. >>>>> */ >>>>> >>>>>+// Allow arch to optionally do additional checking of module ELF header >>>>>+#ifndef elf_check_module_arch >>>>>+#define elf_check_module_arch elf_check_arch >>>>>+#endif >>>> >>>> Hi Nicholas, >>>> >>>> Why not make elf_check_module_arch() consistent with the other >>>> arch-specific functions? Please see module_frob_arch_sections(), >>>> module_{init,exit}_section(), etc in moduleloader.h. That is, they are >>>> all __weak functions that are overridable by arches. We can maybe make >>>> elf_check_module_arch() a weak symbol, available for arches to >>>> override if they want to perform additional elf checks. Then we don't >>>> have to have this one-off #define. >>> >>> >>>Like this? I like it. Good idea. >> >> Yeah! Also, maybe we can alternatively make elf_check_module_arch() a >> separate check entirely so that the powerpc implementation doesn't >> have to include that extra elf_check_arch() call. Something like this maybe? > >Yeah we can do that. Would you be okay if it goes via powerpc tree? If >yes, then we should get your Ack (or SOB because it seems to be entirely >your patch now :D) This can go through the powerpc tree. Will you do another respin of this patch? And yes, feel free to take my SOB for this one - Signed-off-by: Jessica Yu Thanks! Jessica