linux-kernel - Re: rcu_read_lock/unlock protect find_task_by_vpid call in posix_cpu_timer

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: <1290674436.2072.562.camel@laptop>
Date:	Thu, 25 Nov 2010 09:40:36 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	tglx <tglx@...utronix.de>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: rcu_read_lock/unlock protect find_task_by_vpid call in
 posix_cpu_timer_create

On Wed, 2010-11-24 at 20:09 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> ===================================================
> [ INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage. ]
> ---------------------------------------------------
> kernel/pid.c:419 invoked rcu_dereference_check() without protection!
> 
> other info that might help us debug this:
> 
> 
> rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 1
> 1 lock held by scrashme/20820:
>  #0:  (tasklist_lock){.?.?..}, at: [<ffffffff8106e30f>] posix_cpu_timer_create+0x50/0xee
> 
> stack backtrace:
> Pid: 20820, comm: scrashme Not tainted 2.6.37-rc3+ #7
> Call Trace:
>  [<ffffffff8107cfd5>] lockdep_rcu_dereference+0x9d/0xa5
>  [<ffffffff81069d08>] find_task_by_pid_ns+0x44/0x5d
>  [<ffffffff81069d43>] find_task_by_vpid+0x22/0x24
>  [<ffffffff8106e32d>] posix_cpu_timer_create+0x6e/0xee
>  [<ffffffff8106eb88>] do_cpu_nanosleep+0x83/0x1ad
>  [<ffffffff8106f50a>] posix_cpu_nsleep+0x6d/0xf6
>  [<ffffffff810f9a64>] ? might_fault+0xa5/0xac
>  [<ffffffff810f9a1b>] ? might_fault+0x5c/0xac
>  [<ffffffff8106bf57>] sys_clock_nanosleep+0x7c/0xcb
>  [<ffffffff81009cb2>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/posix-cpu-timers.c b/kernel/posix-cpu-timers.c
> index 6842eeb..2658955 100644
> --- a/kernel/posix-cpu-timers.c
> +++ b/kernel/posix-cpu-timers.c
> @@ -391,6 +391,7 @@ int posix_cpu_timer_create(struct k_itimer *new_timer)
>  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&new_timer->it.cpu.entry);
>  
>  	read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> +	rcu_read_lock();
>  	if (CPUCLOCK_PERTHREAD(new_timer->it_clock)) {
>  		if (pid == 0) {
>  			p = current;
> @@ -414,6 +415,7 @@ int posix_cpu_timer_create(struct k_itimer *new_timer)
>  	} else {
>  		ret = -EINVAL;
>  	}
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
>  	read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
>  
>  	return ret;

Do we still need the tasklist_lock in this case?

Also, why is that think complaining, surely the tasklist_lock pins any
and all PID objects?
--
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/