linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -mm][AIO] Fix AIO completion signal notification possible ref leak

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]

Message-ID: <20070206093142.738f93e6@frecb000686>
Date:	Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:31:42 +0100
From:	Sébastien Dugué <sebastien.dugue@...l.net>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Cc:	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-aio <linux-aio@...ck.org>,
	Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ibm.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Suparna Bhattacharya <suparna@...ibm.com>,
	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
	Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>,
	Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@...ibm.com>,
	Jean Pierre Dion <jean-pierre.dion@...l.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm][AIO] Fix AIO completion signal notification
 possible ref leak

On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 20:13:35 +0300 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru> wrote:

> On 02/05, S?bastien Dugu? wrote:
> > 
> >   Make sure we only accept valid sigev_notify values in aio_setup_sigevent(),
> > namely SIGEV_NONE, SIGEV_THREAD_ID or SIGEV_SIGNAL.
> 
> I think this is correct, but I have another concern (most probably I just
> confused looking at non-applied patch), could you re-check?
> 
> > @@ -959,6 +959,10 @@ static long aio_setup_sigevent(struct ai
> >  	if (event.sigev_notify == SIGEV_NONE)
> >  		return 0;
> >  
> > +	if (event.sigev_notify != SIGEV_SIGNAL &&
> > +	    event.sigev_notify != SIGEV_THREAD_ID)
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +
> >  	notify->notify = event.sigev_notify;
> >  	notify->signo = event.sigev_signo;
> >  	notify->value = event.sigev_value;
> 
> Ok. But what if sigevent_find_task() fails after that? Doesn't this mean
> that really_put_req() will do put_task_struct(NULL) ?
> 

  Argh, right, a patch to fix that and a couple of other corner cases to
follow soon.

  Thanks Oleg for looking through this.

  Sébastien.
-
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/