linux-kernel - [Bug 11824][PATCH] ieee1394: raw1394: fix possible deadlock in multithreaded clients

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

Date:	Sun, 26 Oct 2008 12:02:03 +0100 (CET)
From:	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
To:	linux1394-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
cc:	bugme-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Dan Dennedy <dan@...nedy.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...urebad.de>
Subject: [Bug 11824][PATCH] ieee1394: raw1394: fix possible deadlock in
 multithreaded clients

Regression in 2.6.28-rc1:  When I added the new state_mutex which
prevents corruption of raw1394's internal state when accessed by
multithreaded client applications, the following possible though
highly unlikely deadlock slipped in:

Thread A:                  Thread B:
 - acquire mmap_sem         - raw1394_write() or raw1394_ioctl()
 - raw1394_mmap()           - acquire state_mutex
 - acquire state_mutex      - copy_to/from_user(), possible page fault:
                              acquire mmap_sem

The simplest fix is to use mutex_trylock() instead of mutex_lock() in
raw1394_mmap().  This changes the behavior under contention in a way
which is visible to userspace clients.  However, since multithreaded
access was entirely buggy before state_mutex was added and libraw1394's
documentation advised application programmers to use a handle only in a
single thread, this change in behaviour should not be an issue in
practice at all.

Since we have to use mutex_trylock() in raw1394_mmap() regardless
whether /dev/raw1394 was opened with O_NONBLOCK or not, we now use
mutex_trylock() unconditionally everywhere for state_mutex, just to have
consistent behavior.

Reported-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...urebad.de>
Signed-off-by: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
---

Background:  That new state_mutex went only in because raw1394_ioctl()
already head some weak protection by the Big Kernel Lock, which I
removed for the general reasons pro BKL removal (get better performance
with local locks; make the locking clearer, easier to debug, more
reliable).

 drivers/ieee1394/raw1394.c |    9 ++++++---
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Index: linux/drivers/ieee1394/raw1394.c
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/drivers/ieee1394/raw1394.c
+++ linux/drivers/ieee1394/raw1394.c
@@ -2268,7 +2268,8 @@ static ssize_t raw1394_write(struct file
 		return -EFAULT;
 	}
 
-	mutex_lock(&fi->state_mutex);
+	if (!mutex_trylock(&fi->state_mutex))
+		return -EAGAIN;
 
 	switch (fi->state) {
 	case opened:
@@ -2548,7 +2549,8 @@ static int raw1394_mmap(struct file *fil
 	struct file_info *fi = file->private_data;
 	int ret;
 
-	mutex_lock(&fi->state_mutex);
+	if (!mutex_trylock(&fi->state_mutex))
+		return -EAGAIN;
 
 	if (fi->iso_state == RAW1394_ISO_INACTIVE)
 		ret = -EINVAL;
@@ -2669,7 +2671,8 @@ static long raw1394_ioctl(struct file *f
 		break;
 	}
 
-	mutex_lock(&fi->state_mutex);
+	if (!mutex_trylock(&fi->state_mutex))
+		return -EAGAIN;
 
 	switch (fi->iso_state) {
 	case RAW1394_ISO_INACTIVE:

-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-==--- =-=- ==-=-
http://arcgraph.de/sr/

--
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/