linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sigqueue_free: fix the race with collect

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: <46CF3988.1020408@us.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 24 Aug 2007 13:03:20 -0700
From:	Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ibm.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
CC:	taoyue <yue.tao@...driver.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...ru>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sigqueue_free: fix the race with collect_signal()

Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/24, taoyue wrote:
>   
>> Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>     
>>>> collect_signal:				sigqueue_free:
>>>>
>>>> 	list_del_init(&first->list);
>>>>                                       spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
>>>>    
>>>>         
>>>                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>  
>>>       
>>>>                                       if (!list_empty(&q->list))
>>>>                                             list_del_init(&q->list);
>>>>                                       spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, 
>>>>                                       flags);
>>>>                                       q->flags &= ~SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC;
>>>>
>>>>       __sigqueue_free(first);		__sigqueue_free(q);
>>>>    
>>>>         
>>> collect_signal() is always called under ->siglock which is also taken by
>>> sigqueue_free(), so this is not possible.
>>>
>>> Basically, this patch is the same one-liner I sent you before
>>>
>>> 	http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=118772206603453&w=2
>>>
>>> (Thanks for the additional testing and report, btw).
>>>
>>> P.S. It would be nice to know if this patch solves the problems reported
>>> by Jeremy, but his email is disabled.
>>>
>>> Oleg.
>>>
>>>  
>>>       
>> I know, using current->sighand->siglock to prevent one sigqueue
>> is free twice. I want to know whether it is possible that the two
>> function is called in different thread. If that, the spin_lock is useless.
>>     
>
> Not sure I understand. Yes, it is possible they are called by 2 different
> threads, that is why we had a race. But all threads in the same thread
> group have the same ->sighand, and thus the same ->sighand->siglock.
>   

Oleg, if one thread can be in collect_signal() and another in 
sigqueue_free() and both operate on the exact same sigqueue object, its 
not clear how we prevent two calls to __sigqueue_free() to
the same object. In that case the lock (or some lock) should be around 
__sigqueue_free() - no ?

 i.e if we enter sigqueue_free(), we will call __sigqueue_free() 
regardless of the state.

> Oleg.
>
> -
> 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/