| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <1165636126.3980.11.camel@raven.themaw.net>
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 12:48:46 +0900
From: Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
To: Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org, torvalds@...l.org,
Justin Forbes <jmforbes@...uxtx.org>,
Zwane Mwaikambo <zwane@....linux.org.uk>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Chuck Wolber <chuckw@...ntumlinux.com>,
Chris Wedgwood <reviews@...cw.f00f.org>,
Michael Krufky <mkrufky@...uxtv.org>, akpm@...l.org,
alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, jkosina@...e.cz
Subject: Re: [patch 28/32] autofs: fix error code path in autofs_fill_sb()
On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 15:58 -0800, Chris Wright wrote:
> plain text document attachment
> (autofs-fix-error-code-path-in-autofs_fill_sb.patch)
> -stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
> ------------------
Stable review of what (version)?
>
> From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
>
> When kernel is compiled with old version of autofs (CONFIG_AUTOFS_FS), and
> new (observed at least with 5.x.x) automount deamon is started, kernel
> correctly reports incompatible version of kernel and userland daemon, but
> then screws things up instead of correct handling of the error:
No objections.
I'm sure I tested this case when I did the original patch that has the
error which this patch fixes.
The bug is clearly present and needs fixing.
>
> autofs: kernel does not match daemon version
> =====================================
> [ BUG: bad unlock balance detected! ]
> -------------------------------------
> automount/4199 is trying to release lock (&type->s_umount_key) at:
> [<c0163b9e>] get_sb_nodev+0x76/0xa4
> but there are no more locks to release!
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
> no locks held by automount/4199.
>
> stack backtrace:
> [<c0103b15>] dump_trace+0x68/0x1b2
> [<c0103c77>] show_trace_log_lvl+0x18/0x2c
> [<c01041db>] show_trace+0xf/0x11
> [<c010424d>] dump_stack+0x12/0x14
> [<c012e02c>] print_unlock_inbalance_bug+0xe7/0xf3
> [<c012fd4f>] lock_release+0x8d/0x164
> [<c012b452>] up_write+0x14/0x27
> [<c0163b9e>] get_sb_nodev+0x76/0xa4
> [<c0163689>] vfs_kern_mount+0x83/0xf6
> [<c016373e>] do_kern_mount+0x2d/0x3e
> [<c017513f>] do_mount+0x607/0x67a
> [<c0175224>] sys_mount+0x72/0xa4
> [<c0102b96>] sysenter_past_esp+0x5f/0x99
> DWARF2 unwinder stuck at sysenter_past_esp+0x5f/0x99
> Leftover inexact backtrace:
> =======================
>
> and then deadlock comes.
>
> The problem: autofs_fill_super() returns EINVAL to get_sb_nodev(), but
> before that, it calls kill_anon_super() to destroy the superblock which
> won't be needed. This is however way too soon to call kill_anon_super(),
> because get_sb_nodev() has to perform its own cleanup of the superblock
> first (deactivate_super(), etc.). The correct time to call
> kill_anon_super() is in the autofs_kill_sb() callback, which is called by
> deactivate_super() at proper time, when the superblock is ready to be
> killed.
>
> I can see the same faulty codepath also in autofs4. This patch solves
> issues in both filesystems in a same way - it postpones the
> kill_anon_super() until the proper time is signalized by deactivate_super()
> calling the kill_sb() callback.
>
> [raven@...maw.net: update comment]
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
> Acked-by: Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
> Cc: <stable@...nel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>
> ---
>
> fs/autofs/inode.c | 7 ++++---
> fs/autofs4/inode.c | 7 ++++---
> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> --- linux-2.6.19.orig/fs/autofs/inode.c
> +++ linux-2.6.19/fs/autofs/inode.c
> @@ -28,10 +28,11 @@ void autofs_kill_sb(struct super_block *
> /*
> * In the event of a failure in get_sb_nodev the superblock
> * info is not present so nothing else has been setup, so
> - * just exit when we are called from deactivate_super.
> + * just call kill_anon_super when we are called from
> + * deactivate_super.
> */
> if (!sbi)
> - return;
> + goto out_kill_sb;
>
> if ( !sbi->catatonic )
> autofs_catatonic_mode(sbi); /* Free wait queues, close pipe */
> @@ -44,6 +45,7 @@ void autofs_kill_sb(struct super_block *
>
> kfree(sb->s_fs_info);
>
> +out_kill_sb:
> DPRINTK(("autofs: shutting down\n"));
> kill_anon_super(sb);
> }
> @@ -209,7 +211,6 @@ fail_iput:
> fail_free:
> kfree(sbi);
> s->s_fs_info = NULL;
> - kill_anon_super(s);
> fail_unlock:
> return -EINVAL;
> }
> --- linux-2.6.19.orig/fs/autofs4/inode.c
> +++ linux-2.6.19/fs/autofs4/inode.c
> @@ -152,10 +152,11 @@ void autofs4_kill_sb(struct super_block
> /*
> * In the event of a failure in get_sb_nodev the superblock
> * info is not present so nothing else has been setup, so
> - * just exit when we are called from deactivate_super.
> + * just call kill_anon_super when we are called from
> + * deactivate_super.
> */
> if (!sbi)
> - return;
> + goto out_kill_sb;
>
> sb->s_fs_info = NULL;
>
> @@ -167,6 +168,7 @@ void autofs4_kill_sb(struct super_block
>
> kfree(sbi);
>
> +out_kill_sb:
> DPRINTK("shutting down");
> kill_anon_super(sb);
> }
> @@ -426,7 +428,6 @@ fail_ino:
> fail_free:
> kfree(sbi);
> s->s_fs_info = NULL;
> - kill_anon_super(s);
> fail_unlock:
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> --
> -
> 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists