linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.14 57/91] bfq-iosched: ensure to clear bic/bfqq pointers when preparing request

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, 30 Apr 2018 12:24:39 -0700
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: [PATCH 4.14 57/91] bfq-iosched: ensure to clear bic/bfqq pointers when preparing request

4.14-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>

commit 72961c4e6082be79825265d9193272b8a1634dec upstream.

Even if we don't have an IO context attached to a request, we still
need to clear the priv[0..1] pointers, as they could be pointing
to previously used bic/bfqq structures. If we don't do so, we'll
either corrupt memory on dispatching a request, or cause an
imbalance in counters.

Inspired by a fix from Kees.

Reported-by: Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>
Reported-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
Fixes: aee69d78dec0 ("block, bfq: introduce the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler as an extra scheduler")
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 block/bfq-iosched.c |   10 +++++++++-
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/block/bfq-iosched.c
+++ b/block/bfq-iosched.c
@@ -4447,8 +4447,16 @@ static void bfq_prepare_request(struct r
 	bool new_queue = false;
 	bool bfqq_already_existing = false, split = false;
 
-	if (!rq->elv.icq)
+	/*
+	 * Even if we don't have an icq attached, we should still clear
+	 * the scheduler pointers, as they might point to previously
+	 * allocated bic/bfqq structs.
+	 */
+	if (!rq->elv.icq) {
+		rq->elv.priv[0] = rq->elv.priv[1] = NULL;
 		return;
+	}
+
 	bic = icq_to_bic(rq->elv.icq);
 
 	spin_lock_irq(&bfqd->lock);