linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] break out page allocation warning code

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

Date:	Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:22:54 -0700
From:	Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] break out page allocation warning code

On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 13:25 -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> It shouldn't be a follow-on patch since you're introducing a new feature 
> here (vmalloc allocation failure warnings) and what I'm identifying is a 
> race in the access to current->comm.  A bug fix for a race should always 
> preceed a feature that touches the same code. 

So, what's the race here?  kmemleak.c says?

                /*
                 * There is a small chance of a race with set_task_comm(),
                 * however using get_task_comm() here may cause locking
                 * dependency issues with current->alloc_lock. In the worst
                 * case, the command line is not correct.
                 */
                strncpy(object->comm, current->comm, sizeof(object->comm));

We're trying to make sure we don't print out a partially updated
tsk->comm?  Or, is there a bigger issue here like potential oopses or
kernel information leaks.

1. We require that no memory allocator ever holds the task lock for the
   current task, and we audit all the existing GFP_ATOMIC users in the
   kernel to ensure they're not doing it now.  In the case of a problem,
   we end up with a hung kernel while trying to get a message out to the
   console.
2. We remove current->comm from the printk(), and deal with the
   information loss.
3. We live with corrupted output, like the other ~400 in-kernel users of
   ->comm do. (I'm assuming that very few of them hold the task lock). 
   In the case of a race, we get junk on the console, but an otherwise
   fine bug report (the way it is now).
4. We come up with some way to print out current->comm, without holding
   any task locks.  We could do this by copying it somewhere safe on
   each context switch.  Could probably also do it with RCU.

There's also a very, very odd message in fs/exec.c:

        /*
         * Threads may access current->comm without holding
         * the task lock, so write the string carefully.
         * Readers without a lock may see incomplete new
         * names but are safe from non-terminating string reads.
         */

-- Dave

--
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/