linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] lockdep: check the depth of subclass

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: <1286955233.29097.68.camel@twins>
Date:	Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:33:53 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@....info.waseda.ac.jp>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	h.mitake@...il.com, Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...l.ru>,
	Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@....cz>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] lockdep: check the depth of subclass

On Wed, 2010-10-13 at 11:26 +0900, Hitoshi Mitake wrote:
>  >> @@ -639,6 +639,21 @@ look_up_lock_class(struct lockdep_map *lock, unsigned int subclass)
>  >>     }
>  >>   #endif
>  >>
>  >> +   if (unlikely(subclass>= MAX_LOCKDEP_SUBCLASSES)) {
>  >> +           /*
>  >> +            * This check should be done not only in __lock_acquire()
>  >> +            * but also here. Because register_lock_class() is also called
>  >> +            * by lock_set_class(). Callers of lock_set_class() can
>  >> +            * pass invalid value as subclass.
>  >> +            */
>  >> +
>  >> +           debug_locks_off();
>  >> +           printk(KERN_ERR "BUG: looking up invalid subclass: %u\n", subclass);
>  >> +           printk(KERN_ERR "turning off the locking correctness validator.\n");
>  >> +           dump_stack();
>  >> +           return NULL;
>  >> +   }
>  >
>  > Would we catch all cases if we moved this check from __lock_acquire()
>  > into register_lock_class()? It would result in only a single instance of
>  > this logic.
>  >
> 
> I think that __lock_acquire() should also check the value of subclass.
> Because it access to the lock->class_cache as array
> before calling look_up_lock_class() after applying this patch.
> 
> So if the check isn't done in __lock_acquire(),
> the invalid addresses might be interpreted as the addresses of
> struct lock_class. 


But __lock_acquire() does:

  if (subclass < NR_LOCKDEP_CACHING_CLASSES)
    class = lock->class_cache[subclass];

  if (!class)
    class = register_lock_class();

So by moving the: subclass >= MAX_LOCKDEP_SUBCLASSES, check into
register_lock_class() it would still trigger for __lock_acquire().
Because NR_LOCKDEP_CACHING_CLASSES <= MAX_LOCKDEP_SUBCLASSES, and thus
for subclass >= MAX_LOCKDEP_SUBCLASSES we'll always call into
register_lock_class() and trigger the failure there, no?


--
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/