linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: fix lazy vmap purging (use-after-free error)

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Fri, 20 Feb 2009 07:46:19 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, stable@...nel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: fix lazy vmap purging (use-after-free error)

On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 03:51:28PM +0100, Vegard Nossum wrote:
> 2009/2/20 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>:
> >
> > * Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> >
> >> ah, indeed:
> >>
> >>         list_del_rcu(&va->list);
> >>
> >> i suspect it could be hit big time in a workload that opens
> >> more than 512 files, as expand_files() uses a
> >> vmalloc()+vfree() pair in that case.
> >
> > hm, perhaps it's not a problem after all. The freeing is done
> > via rcu, and list_del_rcu() leaves the forward pointer intact.
> 
> Well, it's not the particular line that you posted, in any case.
> That's &va->list, but the traversed list is &va->purge_list.
> 
> I thought it would be the line:
> 
>         call_rcu(&va->rcu_head, rcu_free_va);
> 
> (which does kfree() in the callback) that was the problem.
> 
> > So how did it happen that the entry got kfree()d before the loop
> > was done? We are in a spinlocked section so the CPU should not
> > have entered rcu processing.
> 
> I added some printks to __free_vmap_area() and rcu_free_va(), and it
> shows that the kfree() is being called immediately (inside the list
> traversal). So the call_rcu() is happening immediately (or almost
> immediately).
> 
> If I've understood correctly, the RCU processing can happen inside a
> spinlock, as long as interrupts are enabled. (Won't the timer IRQ
> trigger softirq processing, which triggers RCU callback processing,
> for example?)
> 
> And interrupts are enabled when this happens: EFLAGS: 00000292
> 
> Please correct me if I am wrong!

If you are using preemptable RCU, and if the read side accesses are not
protected by rcu_read_lock(), this can happen.  At least for values of
"immediately" in the millisecond range.

If you were using classic or hierarchical RCU, the fact that the
call_rcu() is within a spinlock (as opposed to mutex) critical section
should prevent the grace period from ending.

So, what flavor of RCU were you using?

							Thanx, Paul
--
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/