linux-kernel - Re: Bug: "bad unlock balance detected" 2.6.27-rc3-next-20080820

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: <24926.1219410297@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 22 Aug 2008 14:04:57 +0100
From:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:	"Vegard Nossum" <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
Cc:	dhowells@...hat.com, "jay kumar" <jaykumarks@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-next@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Bug: "bad unlock balance detected" 2.6.27-rc3-next-20080820

Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com> wrote:

> I couldn't reproduce your original failure, but I've attempted to fix
> it by reordering the mutex unlock and bprm free and removing the
> extraneous unlock (see attached patch; it boots for me without
> errors).

Your patch ought to throw up its own lock failure.  You've added a
mutex_unlock() call to the execve success path, but you haven't removed one
from install_exec_creds().  Also, this patch is not sufficient as it doesn't
do anything for compat_do_execve().

Can you try the attached patches instead please?  You may find you have one or
more of them present already if you've pulled your tree recently.

David

View attachment "81-cred-compat-exec-mutex.diff" of type "text/x-patch" (2139 bytes)

View attachment "82-cred-exec-mutex-error.diff" of type "text/x-patch" (1290 bytes)

View attachment "83-cred-move-exec-mutex.diff" of type "text/x-patch" (1623 bytes)