linux-kernel - Re: mm_release() call in exit

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: <4738F442.3040905@goop.org>
Date:	Mon, 12 Nov 2007 16:48:02 -0800
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...il.com>
CC:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: mm_release() call in exit_mm() looks dangerous

Jesper Juhl wrote:
> In kernel/exit.c we have this code :
>
> static void exit_mm(struct task_struct * tsk)
> {
>         struct mm_struct *mm = tsk->mm;
>
>         mm_release(tsk, mm);
>         if (!mm)
>                 return;
> ...
>
>
> But, mm_release() may dereference it's second argument ('mm'), so
> shouldn't we be doing the "!mm" test *before* we call mm_release() and
> not after?
> I don't know the mm code well enough to be able to tell if some of the
> other stuff mm_release does needs to be done always and the mm
> dereference can't actually happen, but maybe someone else who knows
> the code better can tell...  In any case, what's currently there looks
> a little shaky..
>   

Yeah, it looks wrong.  mm_release() calls deactivate_mm() as its first
act, which could well dereference mm (though it often doesn't).

    J
-
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/