linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] finx argv

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: <20130316215440.GV11268@two.firstfloor.org>
Date:	Sat, 16 Mar 2013 22:54:40 +0100
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Lucas De Marchi <lucas.de.marchi@...il.com>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, david@...son.dropbear.id.au,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Feng Hong <hongfeng@...vell.com>,
	Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@...fusion.mobi>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] finx argv_split() vs sysctl race

On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 10:23:51PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/16, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >
> > > Perhaps rcu can be better, although a global rwsem looks simpler,
> > > I dunno.
> >
> > It's a general problem with lots of sysctls.
> > >
> > > But argv_split() or its usage should be changed anyway, and GFP_KERNEL
> > > won't work under rcu_read_lock().
> >
> > rcu strings has a helper function to copy the string for sleepy cases.
> 
> Then you need to pre-allocate, take rcu_read_lock(), copy, and check
> that it actually fits the pre-allocated buffer. Not sure why the simple
> rwsem is worse.

The reason I did it originally like that was that some of the sysctls weren't
as "slow path" as power off. And for anything that is even moderately
often used a global lock is going to hurt eventually. The "read" in the
sem also doesn't help because it's still a hot cache line. 
I agree if it the goal was only to fix poweroff RCU is somewhat
overkill and a global lock would be fine.

> But I won't argue in any case
> 
> > > To me 1/2 looks as a simplification anyway, but I won't argue if we
> > > decide to add rcu/locking and avoid this patch.
> >
> > Ok I'll revisit.
> 
> OK, but do you agree with 1/2?

It doesn't solve the race alone because when the 0 byte can move it's
not safe to run kstrndup() in parallel. Ok given the n and that it 
force terminates it could only lead to some junk at the end.

But it seems like a useful small optimization, although I don't know
if it's used in any non slow paths.

I assume you audited all callers that they comprehend that they need
to free differently now.

-Andi
--
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/