linux-kernel - Re: [BUG: kernel/irq/proc.c] unprotected iteration over the IRQ action list in name

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:53:13 +0100
From:	"Dmitry Adamushko" <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>
To:	"Linux Kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG: kernel/irq/proc.c] unprotected iteration over the IRQ action list in name_unique()

On 14/03/07, Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com> wrote:

> 1-st issue:  unprotected iteration over the IRQ action list in name_unique()
>
>
> the racing sequences:
>
> [ 1 ]  request_irq() -> setup_irq() -> register_handler_proc() ->
> name_unique() -> iterate over the action list (*)
>
> setup_irq() releases a desc->lock before calling register_handler_proc().
>
> [ 2 ]  free_irq() -> delete some element while (*) is still in progress -> bum!

"delete" == remove from the list + kfree() as synchronize_irq() is not
going to prevent it for obvious reasons.

Of course, request_irq() and free_irq() are called for the same
/shared/ irq line but for /different/ handlers.

Looks too obvious to be true. I already expected someone prooving me
wrong, at the very least by pointing out a special option of vim to
activate some hidden synchronization code :o)

-- 
Best regards,
Dmitry Adamushko
-
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/