linux-kernel - Re: [BUG]: posix timer: slab error 'double free'

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

Message-ID: <46CEE4C2.9010600@windriver.com>
Date:	Fri, 24 Aug 2007 10:01:38 -0400
From:	taoyue <yue.tao@...driver.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Mark Zhan <rongkai.zhan@...driver.com>,
	Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@...driver.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [BUG]: posix timer: slab error 'double free'

Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> (maintainers cc'ed)
>
> On 08/21, taoyue wrote:
>   
>> I write a simple stress test program for posix timer subsystem, to 
>> reproduce the problem in the lastest mainline kernel.
>> My test program creates 200 threads, and each thread does the following job:
>>
>> Please see my test program in the attachemnt "posix_timer_test.c". You 
>> can compile my test program via the following command line:
>>     
>
> Now we have a testcase. Great, thanks a lot!
>
> Unfortunately, I can't use it because my /lib/libc-2.3.3.so doesn't implement
> SIGEV_THREAD (this is a user-space thing).
>
> However,
>
>   
>> [<c0103941>] show_trace_log_lvl+0x1a/0x30
>> [<c0104593>] show_trace+0x12/0x14
>> [<c01045ab>] dump_stack+0x16/0x18
>> [<c015637b>] __slab_error+0x26/0x28
>> [<c0156bbf>] cache_free_debugcheck+0x1d9/0x298
>> [<c0156eaa>] kmem_cache_free+0x66/0xb5
>> [<c0122f4d>] __sigqueue_free+0x2f/0x32
>> [<c0123147>] __dequeue_signal+0xdc/0x174
>> [<c0124960>] dequeue_signal+0xbb/0x149
>> [<c012569e>] sys_rt_sigtimedwait+0x7f/0x240
>> [<c01029e6>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
>>     
>
> This is very nice trace, which says loudly that sigqueue_free() is racy
> wrt collect_signal(). Very old bug, very small window.
>
> I'll try to send the "right" fix tomorrow after sleep, but in the meanwhile,
> could you please try the patch at the end?
>
> (I am _not_ sure this can explain all problems you were seeing, though).
>
>   
>> And I also apply the four patches from Oleg Nesterov from lkml:
>>
>> http://lkm.org/lkml/2007/8/12/193
>> http://lkm.org/lkml/2007/8/12/194
>> http://lkm.org/lkml/2007/8/12/195
>> http://lkm.org/lkml/2007/8/12/196
>>     
>          ^^^
>         (should be lkml)
>
> Please drop them, except the first one. They have nothing to do with
> these problems, and in fact you apllied the wrong versions.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Oleg.
>
> --- t/kernel/signal.c~	2007-08-21 22:29:25.000000000 +0400
> +++ t/kernel/signal.c	2007-08-21 22:30:05.000000000 +0400
> @@ -1305,7 +1305,7 @@ void sigqueue_free(struct sigqueue *q)
>  	 * If the signal is still pending remove it from the
>  	 * pending queue.
>  	 */
> -	if (unlikely(!list_empty(&q->list))) {
> +	if (1) {
>  		spinlock_t *lock = &current->sighand->siglock;
>  		read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
>  		spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
>
>
>   
Think you for your help. I reserved the first patch:

http://lkm.org/lkml/2007/8/12/193

and applied the previous patch, running the test program again.
Up to now, the test program has been running for more than one
day. It seems likely that the patches avoid the race condition.

yue.tao
-
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/