linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fork: fix oops after fork failure

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <50364183.8040606@parallels.com>
Date:	Thu, 23 Aug 2012 18:43:15 +0400
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
CC:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fork: fix oops after fork failure

On 08/23/2012 06:45 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 23-08-12 16:38:50, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Thu 23-08-12 16:33:12, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Thu 23-08-12 17:08:46, Glauber Costa wrote:
>>>> When we want to duplicate a new process, dup_task_struct() will undergo
>>>> a series of allocations. If alloc_thread_info_node() fails, we call
>>>> free_task_struct() and return.
>>>>
>>>> This seems right, but it is not. free_task_struct() will not only free
>>>> the task struct from the kmem_cache, but will also call
>>>> arch_release_task_struct(). The problem is that this function is
>>>> supposed to undo whatever arch-specific work done by
>>>> arch_dup_task_struct(), that is not yet called at this point.  The
>>>> particular problem I ran accross was that in x86, we will arrive at
>>>> fpu_free() without having ever allocated it.
>>>>
>>>> This code is very ancient, and according to git, it is there since the
>>>> pre-git era. But forks don't fail that often, so that made it well
>>>> hidden.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
>>>> Reported-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...hat.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  kernel/fork.c | 2 +-
>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c
>>>> index 152d023..b397435 100644
>>>> --- a/kernel/fork.c
>>>> +++ b/kernel/fork.c
>>>> @@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ static struct task_struct *dup_task_struct(struct task_struct *orig)
>>>>  
>>>>  	ti = alloc_thread_info_node(tsk, node);
>>>>  	if (!ti) {
>>>> -		free_task_struct(tsk);
>>>> +		kmem_cache_free(task_struct_cachep, tsk);
>>>
>>> What about ia64 (or !CONFIG_ARCH_THREAD_INFO_ALLOCATOR in general) which
>>> doesn't allocate thread_info at all?
>>
>> Hit send button too fast. Should read (or CONFIG_ARCH_THREAD_INFO_ALLOCATOR)
>> ia64 will not fail obviously and there is no other arch which would
>> define own thread infor allocators but there might be some in future.
> 
> Bahh, and I should have been looking at CONFIG_ARCH_TASK_STRUCT_ALLOCATOR
> instead. Anyway ia64 uses page allocator directly so kmem_cache_free is
> not appropriate.
> 
Yes, you are right. Thanks for spotting this
--
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/