linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: fix lazy vmap purging (use-after-free error)

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: <20090223092744.GL9582@elte.hu>
Date:	Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:27:44 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>, stable@...nel.org,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: fix lazy vmap purging (use-after-free error)


* Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:07:35 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> 
> > > ---
> > > 
> > >  init/main.c         |    3 +++
> > >  kernel/rcuclassic.c |    4 +++-
> > >  kernel/rcutree.c    |    4 +++-
> > >  3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/init/main.c b/init/main.c
> > > index 8442094..51f4b71 100644
> > > --- a/init/main.c
> > > +++ b/init/main.c
> > > @@ -121,6 +121,8 @@ static char *static_command_line;
> > >  static char *execute_command;
> > >  static char *ramdisk_execute_command;
> > >  
> > > +int idle_task_is_really_idle;	/* set to 1 late in boot. */
> > > +
> > >  #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > >  /* Setup configured maximum number of CPUs to activate */
> > >  unsigned int __initdata setup_max_cpus = NR_CPUS;
> > > @@ -463,6 +465,7 @@ static noinline void __init_refok rest_init(void)
> > >  	 * at least once to get things moving:
> > >  	 */
> > >  	init_idle_bootup_task(current);
> > > +	idle_task_is_really_idle = 1;
> > >  	preempt_enable_no_resched();
> > >  	schedule();
> > >  	preempt_disable();
> > 
> > Could you please use system_state instead? We could insert a new 
> > stage - or just use SYSTEM_RUNNING as the trigger.
> 
> I think the standalone flag is better (once those 
> extern-decls-in-C get fixed).
> 
> system_state's semantics have, err, evolved over time.  If 
> this happens again (and the patch sneaks past my attention) 
> then there's a risk that code which depends upon system_state 
> will break - this has happened in the past.  Plus piling more 
> dependencies on system_state of course makes any evolution of 
> its semantics harder to do...

All we need is a SYSTEM_BOOTING_EARLY boundary - prior which 
there's no real scheduling yet. I used SYSTEM_SCHEDULER_BOOTING 
state before and it worked well and wasnt fragile.

Our system_state semantics problems were more rooted in the fact 
that the SYSTEM_BOOTING stage wasnt well defined. But if we did 
a SYSTEM_SCHEDULER_BOOTING stage that would be pretty 
bit-rot-safe.

	Ingo
--
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/