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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 11:05:20 +0200 From: Miloslav Semler <majkls@...pere.com> To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: [PATCH] fix SMP ordering hole in fcntl_setlk() (CVE-2008-1669) backport of: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-2.6.25.y.git;a=commitdiff;h=c493a1dd8b3a93b57208319a77a8238f76dabca2 fcntl_setlk()/close() race prevention has a subtle hole - we need to make sure that if we *do* have an fcntl/close race on SMP box, the access to descriptor table and inode->i_flock won't get reordered. As it is, we get STORE inode->i_flock, LOAD descriptor table entry vs. STORE descriptor table entry, LOAD inode->i_flock with not a single lock in common on both sides. We do have BKL around the first STORE, but check in locks_remove_posix() is outside of BKL and for a good reason - we don't want BKL on common path of close(2). Solution is to hold ->file_lock around fcheck() in there; that orders us wrt removal from descriptor table that preceded locks_remove_posix() on close path and we either come first (in which case eviction will be handled by the close side) or we'll see the effect of close and do eviction ourselves. Note that even though it's read-only access, we do need ->file_lock here - rcu_read_lock() won't be enough to order the things. Signed-off-by: Miloslav Semler --- diff -uprN linux-2.6.16.60/fs/locks.c linux-2.6.16.60-new/fs/locks.c --- linux-2.6.16.60/fs/locks.c 2008-01-27 17:58:41.000000000 +0100 +++ linux-2.6.16.60-new/fs/locks.c 2008-05-10 17:41:19.000000000 +0200 @@ -1615,6 +1615,7 @@ int fcntl_setlk(unsigned int fd, struct struct file_lock *file_lock = locks_alloc_lock(); struct flock flock; struct inode *inode; + struct file *f; int error; if (file_lock == NULL) @@ -1689,7 +1690,15 @@ again: * Attempt to detect a close/fcntl race and recover by * releasing the lock that was just acquired. */ - if (!error && fcheck(fd) != filp && flock.l_type != F_UNLCK) { + /* + * we need that spin_lock here - it prevents reordering between + * update of inode->i_flock and check for it done in close(). + * rcu_read_lock() wouldn't do. + */ + spin_lock(¤t->files->file_lock); + f = fcheck(fd); + spin_unlock(¤t->files->file_lock); + if (!error && f != filp && flock.l_type != F_UNLCK) { flock.l_type = F_UNLCK; goto again; } @@ -1758,6 +1767,7 @@ int fcntl_setlk64(unsigned int fd, struc struct file_lock *file_lock = locks_alloc_lock(); struct flock64 flock; struct inode *inode; + struct file *f; int error; if (file_lock == NULL) @@ -1832,7 +1842,10 @@ again: * Attempt to detect a close/fcntl race and recover by * releasing the lock that was just acquired. */ - if (!error && fcheck(fd) != filp && flock.l_type != F_UNLCK) { + spin_lock(¤t->files->file_lock); + f = fcheck(fd); + spin_unlock(¤t->files->file_lock); + if (!error && f != filp && flock.l_type != F_UNLCK) { flock.l_type = F_UNLCK; goto again; } -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists