linux-kernel - [BUG stable, 2.6.32.27] sched: delayed cleanup of user

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20110110123630.GA27057@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:36:30 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG <s.priebe@...fihost.ag>,
	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
	Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [BUG stable, 2.6.32.27] sched: delayed cleanup of user_struct

On 01/10, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 01/10, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote:
> >
> > i've seen your patch and i've seen that we've a lot of crashes in the
> > process cleanup since upgrading from 2.6.32.19 to 2.6.32.27 and i would
> > like to know if you can tell me if your patch will solve them.
> >
> > Log: (ATTENTION Log is in reverse order)
> > http://pastebin.com/WiyEKScs
>
> No, that patch has nothing to do with this crash.
>
> Looks like, this is CONFIG_USER_SCHED bug. Probably something like
> double-free but I know nothing about this code and USER_SCHED is
> deprecated anyway.
>
> I'd suggest you to disable this option.
>
>
> Perhaps it makes sense to report this bug to lkml, though.
> Probably 3959214f971417f4162926ac52ad4cd042958caa is the offending
> commit.

Yes, at first glance "sched: delayed cleanup of user_struct" looks buggy...

uid_hash_find:

	hlist_for_each_entry(user, h, hashent, uidhash_node) {
		if (user->uid == uid) {
			/* possibly resurrect an "almost deleted" object */
			if (atomic_inc_return(&user->__count) == 1)
				cancel_delayed_work(&user->work);
			return user;

cancel_delayed_work() can only cancel the timer. If the timer has
already expired, it can't cancel the pending work, and
cleanup_user_struct() can run after uid_hash_find() returns.

This _looks_ OK, cleanup_user_struct() should notice ->__count == 0
and do nothing. But it is not.

Suppose that the new "owner" of this user_struct (the caller of
uid_hash_find) in turn does free_uid() before up->work->func()
completes. In this case INIT_DELAYED_WORK() can corrupt the pending
work, or 2 instances of work->func() can race with each other on
different CPUs. In particular, this can lead to double free.

Kay?

Oleg.

--
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/