linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] loop: fput() called in loop_clr_fd() may cause bd

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: <20111217223033.GB2203@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Sat, 17 Dec 2011 22:30:33 +0000
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Cc:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>,
	Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] loop: fput() called in loop_clr_fd() may cause bd_mutex
 recursive locking

On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 01:19:28AM +0300, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:

> Sorry, why is that a false positive?
> 
> blkdev_put() calls lo_release() while holding bd_mutex,
> lo_release() calls loop_clr_fd() -> fput(). fput() once again
> attempts to grub already held bd_mutex calling blkdev_put().
> Looks like a recursion to me.

Because of this:
        /* Avoid recursion */
        f = file;
        while (is_loop_device(f)) {
                struct loop_device *l;

                if (f->f_mapping->host->i_bdev == bdev)
                        goto out_putf;

                l = f->f_mapping->host->i_bdev->bd_disk->private_data;
                if (l->lo_state == Lo_unbound) {
                        error = -EINVAL;
                        goto out_putf;
                }
                f = l->lo_backing_file;
        }
in loop_set_fd().  Think of it for a minute - if we could run into the
same bdev in that recursion, what would have happened on read() from
that sucker?  So yes, it is a false positive.  And your patch would
simply leave the underlying device opened, with all the consequences...
--
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/