linux-kernel - Re: [KJ] audit return code handling for kernel

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]

Message-ID: <20060729135513.GB6892@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Sat, 29 Jul 2006 09:55:13 -0400
From:	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
To:	kernel-janitors@...l.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	schwidefsky@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [KJ] audit return code handling for kernel_thread [2/11]

On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 09:14:19AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 10:37:04AM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 04:07:13PM -0400, nhorman@...driver.com wrote:
> > > Audit/Cleanup of kernel_thread calls, specifically checking of return codes.
> > >     Problems seemed to fall into 3 main categories:
> > >     
> > >     1) callers of kernel_thread were inconsistent about meaning of a zero return
> > >     code.  Some callers considered a zero return code to mean success, others took
> > >     it to mean failure.  a zero return code, while not actually possible in the
> > >     current implementation, should be considered a success (pid 0 is/should be
> > >     valid). fixed all callers to treat zero return as success
> > >     
> > >     2) caller of kernel_thread saved return code of kernel_thread for later use
> > >     without ever checking its value.  Callers who did this tended to assume a
> > >     non-zero return was success, and would often wait for a completion queue to be
> > >     woken up, implying that an error (negative return code) from kernel_thread could
> > >     lead to deadlock.  Repaired by checking return code at call time, and setting
> > >     saved return code to zero in the event of an error.
> > 
> > This is inconsistent with your assertion that pid 0 "is/should be valid"
> > above.  If you want '0' to mean "not valid" then it's not a valid return
> > value from kernel_thread() (and arguably that's true, since pid 0 is
> > permanently allocated to the idle thread.)
> > 
> No its, not, but I can see how my comments might be ambiguous. I want zero to be
> a valid return code, since we never actually return zero, but we certainly could
> if we wanted to.  Note that kernel_thread returns an int (not an unsigned int),
> and as such assuming that a non-zero return code implies success ignores the
> fact that kernel_thread can return a negative value, which indicates failure.
> This is what I found, and what my patch fixes.
> 
> > I don't particularly care whether you decide to that returning pid 0 from
> > kernel_thread is valid or not, just that your two points above are at least
> > consistent with each other.
> > 
> My comments in (2) should be made more clear by changing "assume a non-zero
> return was success" to "assume a negative return was success".  This is what my
> patch fixes.
> 
> Thanks & Regards
> Neil
> 


P.S. - Sorry, Russell, et al.  for the double post.  My network link went out and I accendentally
sent two replies to your note

Neil

> > -- 
> > Russell King
> >  Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
> >  maintainer of:  2.6 Serial core
> -
> 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/
-
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/