linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2.6.38-rc8-tip 7/20] 7: uprobes: store/restore original instruction.

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

Message-ID: <20110315185841.GH3410@balbir.in.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 16 Mar 2011 00:28:41 +0530
From:	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Stephen Wilson <wilsons@...rt.ca>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
	SystemTap <systemtap@...rces.redhat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2.6.38-rc8-tip 7/20]  7: uprobes: store/restore
 original instruction.

* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> [2011-03-15 18:57:42]:

> On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 14:52 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > * Stephen Wilson <wilsons@...rt.ca> [2011-03-14 14:09:14]:
> > 
> > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 07:05:22PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > > >  static int install_uprobe(struct mm_struct *mm, struct uprobe *uprobe)
> > > >  {
> > > > -	int ret = 0;
> > > > +	struct task_struct *tsk;
> > > > +	int ret = -EINVAL;
> > > >  
> > > > -	/*TODO: install breakpoint */
> > > > -	if (!ret)
> > > > +	get_task_struct(mm->owner);
> > > > +	tsk = mm->owner;
> > > > +	if (!tsk)
> > > > +		return ret;
> > > 
> > > I think you need to check that tsk != NULL before calling
> > > get_task_struct()...
> > > 
> > 
> > Guess checking for tsk != NULL would only help if and only if we are doing
> > within rcu.  i.e we have to change to something like this
> > 
> > 	rcu_read_lock()
> > 	if (mm->owner) {
> > 		get_task_struct(mm->owner)
> > 		tsk = mm->owner;
> > 	}
> > 	rcu_read_unlock()
> > 	if (!tsk)
> > 		return ret;
> 
> so the whole mm->owner semantics seem vague, memcontrol.c doesn't seem
> consistent in itself, one site uses rcu_dereference() the other site
> doesn't.
> 

mm->owner should be under rcu_read_lock, unless the task is exiting
and mm_count is 1. mm->owner is updated under task_lock().

> Also, the assignments in kernel/fork.c and kernel/exit.c don't use
> rcu_assign_pointer() and therefore lack the needed write barrier.
>

Those are paths when the only context using the mm->owner is single
 
> Git blames Balbir for this.

I accept the blame and am willing to fix anything incorrect found in
the code.


-- 
	Three Cheers,
	Balbir
--
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/