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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070824202305.GA274@tv-sign.ru>
Date:	Sat, 25 Aug 2007 00:23:05 +0400
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To:	Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ibm.com>
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()

On 08/24, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
>
> 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.
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>>      
> >>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.

Yes. They both will call __sigqueue_free(). But please note that __sigqueue_free()
checks SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC, which is cleared by sigqueue_free().

IOW, when sigqueue_free() unlocks ->siglock, we know that it can't be used
by collect_signal() from another thread. So we can clear SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC
and free sigqueue. We don't need this lock around sigqueue_free() to prevent
the race. collect_signal() can "see" only those sigqueues which are on list.

IOW, when sigqueue_free() takes ->siglock, colect_signal() can't run, because
it needs the same lock. Now we delete this sigqueue from list, nobody can
see it, it can't have other references. So we can unlock ->siglock, mark
sigqueue as freeable (clear SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC), and free it.

Do you agree?

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/