linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fix unsafe operation in high resolution 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: <20101225021209.GA11183@zhy>
Date:	Sat, 25 Dec 2010 10:12:09 +0800
From:	Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
To:	Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix unsafe operation in high resolution timer

On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 10:28:52PM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com> wrote:
> >> After calling the callback function of hrtimer, the timer could become
> >> unreliable in corner cases where the timer will no longer be queued
> >> and the mm segment, in which the timer is embedded, could be reclaimed
> >> in the callback.
> >>
> >> The unreliability is fixed by checking the result of callback before
> >> operating the timer again.
> >
> > Though the patch is buggy. But it actually explores a real problem.
> >
> 
> Would you please finger out why the patch is buggy?

No problem.

Actually the patch change the behavior of current hrtimer.
See comments below :)

> >> ---
> >>
> >> --- a/kernel/hrtimer.c  2010-11-01 19:54:12.000000000 +0800
> >> +++ b/kernel/hrtimer.c  2010-12-23 21:17:02.000000000 +0800
> >> @@ -1225,6 +1225,7 @@ static void __run_hrtimer(struct hrtimer
> >>        raw_spin_unlock(&cpu_base->lock);
> >>        trace_hrtimer_expire_entry(timer, now);
> >>        restart = fn(timer);
> >> +       if (restart != HRTIMER_NORESTART)
> >>        trace_hrtimer_expire_exit(timer);
> >>        raw_spin_lock(&cpu_base->lock);
> >>
> >> @@ -1236,11 +1237,8 @@ static void __run_hrtimer(struct hrtimer
> >>        if (restart != HRTIMER_NORESTART) {
> >>                BUG_ON(timer->state != HRTIMER_STATE_CALLBACK);
> >>                enqueue_hrtimer(timer, base);
> >> +               timer->state &= ~HRTIMER_STATE_CALLBACK;

HRTIMER_STATE_CALLBACK is only cleared for RESTART hrtimer with
your modification.

> >>        }
> >> -
> >> -       WARN_ON_ONCE(!(timer->state & HRTIMER_STATE_CALLBACK));
> >> -
> >> -       timer->state &= ~HRTIMER_STATE_CALLBACK;

But for a hrtimer which is not free in its callback, like a
static defined one. the hrtimer could be referenced at the same
time. So here you cann't just delete the two lines.

Thanks,
Yong
--
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/