linux-kernel - Re: [Patch] kernel: bug fixing for kernel/kmod.c

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:15:59 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	kenny <nek.in.cn@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...l.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [Patch] kernel: bug fixing for kernel/kmod.c

On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 01:20 +0800, kenny wrote:
> I think there is a bug in kmod.c. In __call_usermodehelper(), when 
> kernel_thread(wait_for_helper, ...) return success, since
> wait_for_helper() might call complete() at any time, the sub_info should
> not be used any more.

Good catch!

The sub_info is on the stack of call_usermodehelper_keys and with wait
set, the wait_for_helper is called as a thread and does the complete and
there is a chance that the call_usermodehelper_keys will return and use
its stack for something else, before the helper finishes, making the
wait not valid anymore, and worst, using a bad complete.

On a normal case, the wait_for_helper will call something in userland
and this would most likely allow the caller to finish with a correct
wait.  But still this in incorrect code, since there can definitely be a
race here.

OK, now on submitting a patch :-)

1. read Documentation/SubmittingPatches

2. Linus will probably not even read this (although he might).
  So try to find a maintainer. And even on this file you see at the 
  top:

	call_usermodehelper wait flag, and remove exec_usermodehelper.
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>  Jan 2003

Which means that Rusty was probably the one who wrote the code.

3. Use a -p1 patch format to submit.  IOW the files to compare against
should have been a/kernel/kmod.c  and not /tmp/kmod.c.

If you want a cool tool for making patches get quilt:

http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/quilt

4. sign off your work by adding a "Signed-off-by: Full name <email@...ress>"

So please, fix up your patch and send it again properly :)

-- Steve

> 
> the following patch is made in 2.6.17.7
> 
> --- kmod.c      2006-07-25 11:36:01.000000000 +0800
> +++ /tmp/kmod.c 2006-08-02 01:01:42.702054000 +0800
> @@ -198,6 +198,7 @@ static void __call_usermodehelper(void *
>  {
>         struct subprocess_info *sub_info = data;
>         pid_t pid;
> +       int wait = sub_info->wait;
> 
>         /* CLONE_VFORK: wait until the usermode helper has execve'd
>          * successfully We need the data structures to stay around
> @@ -212,7 +213,7 @@ static void __call_usermodehelper(void *
>         if (pid < 0) {
>                 sub_info->retval = pid;
>                 complete(sub_info->complete);
> -       } else if (!sub_info->wait)
> +       } else if (!wait)
>                 complete(sub_info->complete);
>  }

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/