linux-kernel - Re: suspicious RCU usage in security/selinux/netnode.c

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: <20120515144658.GC2461@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 15 May 2012 07:46:58 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>
Cc:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, sds@...ho.nsa.gov,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	paul@...l-moore.com
Subject: Re: suspicious RCU usage in security/selinux/netnode.c

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:24:23AM -0400, Eric Paris wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 1:16 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:41:45AM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> >> I just triggered this on Linus' current tree.
> >
> > This is a bare:
> >
> >        rcu_dereference(sel_netnode_hash[idx].list.prev)
> >
> > which needs to be in an RCU read-side critical section.  Alternatively,
> > the above should instead be something like:
> >
> >        rcu_dereference_check(sel_netnode_hash[idx].list.prev,
> >                              lockdep_is_held(&sel_netnode_lock));
> 
> Right, but that 'bare' dereference comes from
> list_for_each_entry_rcu(), [from sel_netnode_sid_slow()] which I don't
> see how to easily annotate with the lock.  Nor do I think it's within
> my brain power (or my willingness to maintain such in the future) to
> want to open code that logic.

You lost me on this one.  The lockdep splat called out the
rcu_dereference() above, not a list_for_each_entry_rcu().  Besides which,
the list_for_each_entry_rcu() does not do the checking -- at the time,
I was not willing to explode the API that much.

> Should we just take the rcu_read_lock() where we take the spinlock?
> Is that a perf hit and figuring out how to do the annotation correctly
> is the better idea?

If the spinlock is protecting the data, then just add the spinlock
to the rcu_dereference_check() as shown above.

							Thanx, Paul

--
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/