linux-kernel - Re: process 'stuck' at exit.

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:	Tue, 10 Dec 2013 23:42:15 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Subject: Re: process 'stuck' at exit.

On Tue, 10 Dec 2013, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > So it looks like __get_user_pages_fast() fails, and keeps failing.
> 
> Hmm.. Is any of the addresses unchecked, perhaps?
> __get_user_pages_fast() does an access_ok() check, while
> get_user_pages_fast() does *not* seem to do one.
> 
> That looks a bit dangerous. Yeah, users should have checked the
> address range, but there really is no reason not to do it in
> get_user_pages_fast().
> 
> And it looks like the futex code is actually seriously buggered. It
> only does the access_ok() check for the non-shared case.
> 
> Why?

The !fshared case is the fast path which does not even reach
get_user_pages_fast().

We had this discussion some time ago already, where the access_ok()
check was missing in the !fshared case or the check was buggered for
some reason. Need to dig up the gory details.

And yes, I remember that we do not do an extra check for the fshared
case, because get_user_pages_fast() should do it for us already. If
not we are fubared not only in the futex code.

But there is a subtle detail:

    err = get_user_pages_fast(address, 1, 1, &page);

So we ask for write access as the write argument is 1. In case that
fails we have that fallback path:

        /*
         * If write access is not required (eg. FUTEX_WAIT), try
         * and get read-only access.
         */
        if (err == -EFAULT && rw == VERIFY_READ) {
                err = get_user_pages_fast(address, 1, 0, &page);

That's a legitimate use case. And futex_requeue only requests
VERIFY_READ for the !requeue_pi case.

Now, if that map is RO, i.e. we took the fallback path then the THP
one will fail as it has write=1 unconditionally.

      if (likely(__get_user_pages_fast(address, 1, 1, &page) == 1)) 

Thanks,

	tglx

--
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/