linux-kernel - Re: /proc dcache deadlock in do

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

Message-ID: <20071128014509.GE6840@v2.random>
Date:	Wed, 28 Nov 2007 02:45:09 +0100
From:	Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...e.de>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jack@...e.cz,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Subject: Re: /proc dcache deadlock in do_exit

On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 02:21:29AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 02:38:52PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > I don't see why the schedule() will not return?  Because the task has
> > PF_EXITING set?  Doesn't TASK_DEAD do that?
> 
> Ouch, I assumed you couldn't sleep safely anymore in release_task
> given it's the function that will free the task structure itself and
> there was no preempt related action anywhere close to it!
> delayed_put_task_struct can be called if a quiescent point is reached
> and any scheduling would exactly allow it to run (it requires quite a
> bit of a race, with local irq triggering a reschedule and the timer
> irq invoking the tasklet to run to free the task struct before do_exit
> finishes and all other cpus in quiescent state too).
> 
> So a corollary question is how can it be safe to call
> preempt_disable() after call_rcu(delayed_put_task_struct)?
> 
> Back in sles9 preempt_disable was implemented as
> _raw_write_unlock(&tasklist_lock) and it happened _before_
> release_task, and scheduling there wouldn't return because PF_DEAD was
> already set. If mainline can come back, it will crash for a different
> reason because the task struct is long gone by the time
> release_task+schedule() runs. Either ways, still a kernel crashing bug
> there is. Or is there some magic that prevents call_rcu + schedule to
> invoke the rcu callback?
> 
> So you may need to apply this one too (this one is needed to fix the
> second bug, my previous patch is needed after applying this one):

thinking what happened once already, I think this would be more
debuggable but maybe not... dunno.

Signed-off-by: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...e.de>

diff --git a/kernel/exit.c b/kernel/exit.c
--- a/kernel/exit.c
+++ b/kernel/exit.c
@@ -841,6 +841,14 @@ static void exit_notify(struct task_stru
 
 	write_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
 
+	/*
+	 * Task struct can go away at the first schedule if this was a
+	 * self reaping task after calling release_task. Scheduling is
+	 * forbidden until do_exit finishes.
+	 */
+	preempt_disable();
+	tsk->state = TASK_DEAD;
+
 	/* If the process is dead, release it - nobody will wait for it */
 	if (state == EXIT_DEAD)
 		release_task(tsk);
@@ -1042,10 +1050,7 @@ fastcall NORET_TYPE void do_exit(long co
 	if (tsk->splice_pipe)
 		__free_pipe_info(tsk->splice_pipe);
 
-	preempt_disable();
 	/* causes final put_task_struct in finish_task_switch(). */
-	tsk->state = TASK_DEAD;
-
 	schedule();
 	BUG();
 	/* Avoid "noreturn function does return".  */

-
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/