linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.35-rc2 module reference counting broken

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: <4C108778.71545BCF@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:	Thu, 10 Jun 2010 09:34:32 +0300
From:	Jari Ruusu <jariruusu@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: 2.6.35-rc2 module reference counting broken

Tejun Heo wrote:
> On 06/09/2010 01:48 AM, Al Viro wrote:
> > Yeah...  bd_start_claiming() grabs a reference to gendisk and we never
> > let it go.  There's your leak...
> 
> Eh, I thought you were cc'd.  Sorry.  This was fixed sometime back by
> Nick and queued in block tree (delayed due to mail misdelivery).
> 
>   http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.file-systems/40655

That one liner patch makes module refcount mismatch go away.

However, I am not sure if that is the right place to insert that
module_put(). The problem with Nick Piggin's (2010-05-25 15:50:21 GMT) patch
is that it makes module refcount temporarily drop to zero.

I added this line right after that "module_put(disk->fops->owner);" fix:

 if(disk->fops->owner){printk("bd_start_claiming: module_refcount=%u\n", module_refcount(disk->fops->owner));}

And that said "module_refcount=0" when I tried it with my silly floppy
module mount+umount test.

Later in the mount system call handling the module refrence count is
incremented. But to me that looks like there is a window of opportunity for
things to go wrong. What is there to prevent module from being removed at
zero refcount?

-- 
Jari Ruusu  1024R/3A220F51 5B 4B F9 BB D3 3F 52 E9  DB 1D EB E3 24 0E A9 DD
--
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/