linux-kernel - [PATCH, RESEND] locks: fix possible infinite loop in posix deadlock detection

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]

Date:	Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:20:02 -0400
From:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, stable@...nel.org
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"George G. Davis" <gdavis@...sta.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH, RESEND] locks: fix possible infinite loop in posix
	deadlock detection

From: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@...i.umich.edu>

It's currently possible to send posix_locks_deadlock() into an infinite
loop (under the BKL).

For now, fix this just by bailing out after a few iterations.  We may
want to fix this in a way that better clarifies the semantics of
deadlock detection.  But that will take more time, and this minimal fix
is probably adequate for any realistic scenario, and is simple enough to
be appropriate for applying to stable kernels now.

Thanks to George Davis for reporting the problem.

Cc: "George G. Davis" <gdavis@...sta.com>
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@...i.umich.edu>
---
 fs/locks.c |   11 +++++++++++
 1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

I didn't see objections to this quick fix (just to the followup that
attempts to rip out posix deadlock detection entirely), so I'm
resending with just comment modifications.

I haven't given up on a more comprehensive solution, but I think we
really need to apply some fix now.

--b.

diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
index 0127a28..8b8388e 100644
--- a/fs/locks.c
+++ b/fs/locks.c
@@ -696,17 +696,28 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(posix_test_lock);
  * Note: the above assumption may not be true when handling lock requests
  * from a broken NFS client. But broken NFS clients have a lot more to
  * worry about than proper deadlock detection anyway... --okir
+ *
+ * However, the failure of this assumption (also possible in the case of
+ * multiple tasks sharing the same open file table) also means there's no
+ * guarantee that the loop below will terminate.  As a hack, we give up
+ * after a few iterations.
  */
+
+#define MAX_DEADLK_ITERATIONS 10
+
 static int posix_locks_deadlock(struct file_lock *caller_fl,
 				struct file_lock *block_fl)
 {
 	struct file_lock *fl;
+	int i = 0;
 
 next_task:
 	if (posix_same_owner(caller_fl, block_fl))
 		return 1;
 	list_for_each_entry(fl, &blocked_list, fl_link) {
 		if (posix_same_owner(fl, block_fl)) {
+			if (i++ > MAX_DEADLK_ITERATIONS)
+				return 0;
 			fl = fl->fl_next;
 			block_fl = fl;
 			goto next_task;
-- 
1.5.3.4.208.gc990

-
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/