linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] task_work_add: generic process-context callbacks

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: <20120414030507.GA27579@redhat.com>
Date:	Sat, 14 Apr 2012 05:05:07 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...hat.com>,
	Chris Zankel <chris@...kel.net>,
	David Smith <dsmith@...hat.com>,
	"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] task_work_add: generic process-context callbacks

On 04/13, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> This is seriously buggy:

I am already sleep. But,

> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > +void task_work_run(struct task_struct *task)
> > +{
> > +       struct hlist_head task_works;
> > +       struct hlist_node *pos;
> > +
> > +       raw_spin_lock_irq(&task->pi_lock);
> > +       hlist_move_list(&task->task_works, &task_works);
> > +       raw_spin_unlock_irq(&task->pi_lock);
> > +
> > +       if (unlikely(hlist_empty(&task_works)))
> > +               return;
> > +       /*
> > +        * We use hlist to save the space in task_struct, but we want fifo.
> > +        * Find the last entry, the list should be short, then process them
> > +        * in reverse order.
> > +        */
> > +       for (pos = task_works.first; pos->next; pos = pos->next)
> > +               ;
> > +
> > +       for (;;) {
> > +               struct hlist_node **pprev = pos->pprev;
> > +               struct task_work *twork = container_of(pos, struct task_work,
> > +                                                       hlist);
> > +               twork->func(twork);
> > +
> > +               if (pprev == &task_works.first)
> > +                       break;
> > +               pos = container_of(pprev, struct hlist_node, next);
> > +       }
> > +}
>
> No can do. You've removed the task-work from the process list, and you
> no longer hold the spinlock that protects that list. That means that
> you *cannot* access the task-work data structure any more, because it
> may long be gone.
>
> Look at the users of this interface that you wrote yourself. They
> allocate the task-work on the stack, and do a "task_work_cancel()"
> before returning. That data structure is *gone*. You can't dereference
> it any more.

tsk is always "current", probably this should be documented, I'll add
the comment.

So this can't race with irq_thread() which uses the task_work on stack.

> Basically, *any* access of 'twork' after it is removed from the list
> and you have released the task spinlock is unsafe, as far as I can
> tell.

I don't follow.

Once task_work_run() removes task_work from list (and drops the lock)
nobody can use this twork. task_work_cancel obviously can't find it,
it will return NULL.

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/