linux-kernel - Re: linux-next oops in __lock_acquire for process_one

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: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1205091219590.20881@eggly.anvils>
Date:	Wed, 9 May 2012 13:09:27 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
	Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next oops in __lock_acquire for process_one_work

On Wed, 9 May 2012, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com> wrote:
> 
> > I'll set it going when I get home later - thanks.

Going fine so far, but a more convincing final report tomorrow.

> 
> Do we still need an explanation about why it's needed and why it 
> makes a difference?

I don't see the difficulty in understanding it.  Peter didn't comment
whether my further explanations convinced him or not.  Or perhaps you're
asking for some commit description text - I may not be the right person to
write it, since I didn't make myself understood very well, but here's a go.

lockdep: fix oops in processing workqueue

Under memory load, on x86_64, with lockdep enabled, the workqueue's
process_one_work() has been seen to oops in __lock_acquire(), barfing
on a 0xffffffff00000000 pointer in the lockdep_map's class_cache[].

Because it's permissible to free a work_struct from its callout function,
the map used is an onstack copy of the map given in the work_struct: and
that copy is made without any locking.

Surprisingly, gcc (4.5.1 in Hugh's case) uses "rep movsl" rather than
"rep movsq" for that structure copy: which might race with a workqueue
user's wait_on_work() doing lock_map_acquire() on the source of the
copy, putting a pointer into the class_cache[], but only in time for
the top half of that pointer to be copied to the destination map.

Boom when process_one_work() subsequently does lock_map_acquire()
on its onstack copy of the lockdep_map.

Fix this, and a similar instance in call_timer_fn(), with a
lockdep_copy_map() function which additionally NULLs the class_cache[].

Note: this oops was actually seen on 3.4-next, where flush_work() newly
does the racing lock_map_acquire(); but Tejun points out that 3.4 and
earlier are already vulnerable to the same through wait_on_work().

Hugh
--
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/