linux-kernel - kmem_cache_destroy() badness with SLUB

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]

Message-ID: <1277688701.4200.159.camel@pasglop>
Date:	Mon, 28 Jun 2010 11:31:41 +1000
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: kmem_cache_destroy() badness with SLUB

Hi folks !

Internally, I'm hitting a little "nit"...

sysfs_slab_add() has this check:

	if (slab_state < SYSFS)
		/* Defer until later */
		return 0;

But sysfs_slab_remove() doesn't.

So if the slab is created -and- destroyed at, for example, arch_initcall
time, then we hit a WARN in the kobject code, trying to dispose of a
non-existing kobject.

Now, at first sight, just adding the same test to sysfs_slab_remove()
would do the job... but it all seems very racy to me.

I don't understand in fact how this slab_state deals with races at all. 

What prevents us from hitting slab_sysfs_init() at the same time as
another CPU deos sysfs_slab_add() ? How do that deal with collisions
trying to register the same kobject twice ? Similar race with remove...

Shouldn't we have a mutex around those guys ?

Cheers,
Ben.

--
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/