linux-kernel - [PATCH review 3/3] proc: Allow proc_free

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87sj6yd6nw.fsf@xmission.com>
Date:	Fri, 21 Dec 2012 20:58:43 -0800
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
Subject: [PATCH review 3/3] proc: Allow proc_free_inum to be called from any context


While testing the pid namespace code I hit this nasty warning.

[  176.262617] ------------[ cut here ]------------
[  176.263388] WARNING: at /home/eric/projects/linux/linux-userns-devel/kernel/softirq.c:160 local_bh_enable_ip+0x7a/0xa0()
[  176.265145] Hardware name: Bochs
[  176.265677] Modules linked in:
[  176.266341] Pid: 742, comm: bash Not tainted 3.7.0userns+ #18
[  176.266564] Call Trace:
[  176.266564]  [<ffffffff810a539f>] warn_slowpath_common+0x7f/0xc0
[  176.266564]  [<ffffffff810a53fa>] warn_slowpath_null+0x1a/0x20
[  176.266564]  [<ffffffff810ad9ea>] local_bh_enable_ip+0x7a/0xa0
[  176.266564]  [<ffffffff819308c9>] _raw_spin_unlock_bh+0x19/0x20
[  176.266564]  [<ffffffff8123dbda>] proc_free_inum+0x3a/0x50
[  176.266564]  [<ffffffff8111d0dc>] free_pid_ns+0x1c/0x80
[  176.266564]  [<ffffffff8111d195>] put_pid_ns+0x35/0x50
[  176.266564]  [<ffffffff810c608a>] put_pid+0x4a/0x60
[  176.266564]  [<ffffffff8146b177>] tty_ioctl+0x717/0xc10
[  176.266564]  [<ffffffff810aa4d5>] ? wait_consider_task+0x855/0xb90
[  176.266564]  [<ffffffff81086bf9>] ? default_spin_lock_flags+0x9/0x10
[  176.266564]  [<ffffffff810cab0a>] ? remove_wait_queue+0x5a/0x70
[  176.266564]  [<ffffffff811e37e8>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x98/0x550
[  176.266564]  [<ffffffff810b8a0f>] ? recalc_sigpending+0x1f/0x60
[  176.266564]  [<ffffffff810b9127>] ? __set_task_blocked+0x37/0x80
[  176.266564]  [<ffffffff810ab95b>] ? sys_wait4+0xab/0xf0
[  176.266564]  [<ffffffff811e3d31>] sys_ioctl+0x91/0xb0
[  176.266564]  [<ffffffff810a95f0>] ? task_stopped_code+0x50/0x50
[  176.266564]  [<ffffffff81939199>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
[  176.266564] ---[ end trace 387af88219ad6143 ]---

It turns out that spin_unlock_bh(proc_inum_lock) is not safe when
put_pid is called with another spinlock held and irqs disabled.

For now take the easy path and use spin_lock_irqsave(proc_inum_lock)
in proc_free_inum and spin_loc_irq in proc_alloc_inum(proc_inum_lock).

Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
---
 fs/proc/generic.c |   13 +++++++------
 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/proc/generic.c b/fs/proc/generic.c
index e064f56..76ddae8 100644
--- a/fs/proc/generic.c
+++ b/fs/proc/generic.c
@@ -352,18 +352,18 @@ retry:
 	if (!ida_pre_get(&proc_inum_ida, GFP_KERNEL))
 		return -ENOMEM;
 
-	spin_lock_bh(&proc_inum_lock);
+	spin_lock_irq(&proc_inum_lock);
 	error = ida_get_new(&proc_inum_ida, &i);
-	spin_unlock_bh(&proc_inum_lock);
+	spin_unlock_irq(&proc_inum_lock);
 	if (error == -EAGAIN)
 		goto retry;
 	else if (error)
 		return error;
 
 	if (i > UINT_MAX - PROC_DYNAMIC_FIRST) {
-		spin_lock_bh(&proc_inum_lock);
+		spin_lock_irq(&proc_inum_lock);
 		ida_remove(&proc_inum_ida, i);
-		spin_unlock_bh(&proc_inum_lock);
+		spin_unlock_irq(&proc_inum_lock);
 		return -ENOSPC;
 	}
 	*inum = PROC_DYNAMIC_FIRST + i;
@@ -372,9 +372,10 @@ retry:
 
 void proc_free_inum(unsigned int inum)
 {
-	spin_lock_bh(&proc_inum_lock);
+	unsigned long flags;
+	spin_lock_irqsave(&proc_inum_lock, flags);
 	ida_remove(&proc_inum_ida, inum - PROC_DYNAMIC_FIRST);
-	spin_unlock_bh(&proc_inum_lock);
+	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&proc_inum_lock, flags);
 }
 
 static void *proc_follow_link(struct dentry *dentry, struct nameidata *nd)
-- 
1.7.5.4

--
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/