[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46CEEA94.2070902@windriver.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 10:26:28 -0400
From: taoyue <yue.tao@...driver.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...ru>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Jeremy Katz <jeremy.katz@...driver.com>,
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:
> Spotted by taoyue <yue.tao@...driver.com> and Jeremy Katz <jeremy.katz@...driver.com>.
>
> collect_signal: sigqueue_free:
>
> list_del_init(&first->list);
> if (!list_empty(&q->list)) {
> // not taken
> }
> q->flags &= ~SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC;
>
> __sigqueue_free(first); __sigqueue_free(q);
>
> Now, __sigqueue_free() is called twice on the same "struct sigqueue" with the
> obviously bad implications.
>
> In particular, this double free breaks the array_cache->avail logic, so the
> same sigqueue could be "allocated" twice, and the bug can manifest itself via
> the "impossible" BUG_ON(!SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC) in sigqueue_free/send_sigqueue.
>
> Hopefully this can explain these mysterious bug-reports, see
>
> http://marc.info/?t=118766926500003
> http://marc.info/?t=118466273000005
>
> Alexey Dobriyan reports this patch makes the difference for the testcase, but
> nobody has an access to the application which opened the problems originally.
>
> Also, this patch removes tasklist lock/unlock, ->siglock is enough.
>
> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
>
> --- t/kernel/signal.c~SQFREE 2007-08-22 20:06:31.000000000 +0400
> +++ t/kernel/signal.c 2007-08-23 16:02:57.000000000 +0400
> @@ -1297,20 +1297,19 @@ struct sigqueue *sigqueue_alloc(void)
> void sigqueue_free(struct sigqueue *q)
> {
> unsigned long flags;
> + spinlock_t *lock = ¤t->sighand->siglock;
> +
> BUG_ON(!(q->flags & SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC));
> /*
> * If the signal is still pending remove it from the
> - * pending queue.
> + * pending queue. We must hold ->siglock while testing
> + * q->list to serialize with collect_signal().
> */
> - if (unlikely(!list_empty(&q->list))) {
> - spinlock_t *lock = ¤t->sighand->siglock;
> - read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> - spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
> - if (!list_empty(&q->list))
> - list_del_init(&q->list);
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
> - read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> - }
> + 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(q);
> }
>
>
>
Applying previous patch,it seems likely that the __sigqueue_free() is also called twice.
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);
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists