[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081128192508.GA21369@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 20:25:08 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Vitaly Mayatskikh <vmayatsk@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: BUG? "Call fasync() functions without the BKL" is racy
Hi.
Let's suppose we have the tasks T1, T2, T3 which share the same file,
all do sys_fcntl(file, F_SETFL) in parallel. file->f_flags == 0.
setfl(arg) does:
if ((arg ^ filp->f_flags) & FASYNC)
// --- WINDOW_1 ---
filp->f_op->fasync(fd, filp, (arg & FASYNC) != 0)
// --- WINDOW_2 ---
filp->f_flags = arg;
T1 calls setfl(FASYNC), preempted in WINDOW_1.
T2 calls setfl(FASYNC), does all job and returns.
T3 calls setfl(0), sees ->f_flags & FASYNC, does ->fasync(on => 0),
preempted in WINDOW_2.
T1 resumes, does ->fasync(on => 1) again, update ->f_flags (it
already has FASYNC) and returns.
T3 resumes, and clears FASYNC from ->f_flags.
Now, this file was added into some "struct fasync_struct", but
->f_flags doesn't have FASYNC. This means __fput() will skip
->fasync(on => 0) and the next kill_fasync() can crash because
fa_file points to the freed/reused memory.
I think a238b790d5f99c7832f9b73ac8847025815b85f7 should be reverted.
Or do you see the better fix?
Unless I missed something of course.
Oleg.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists