| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <51760528.8000304@asianux.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 11:51:04 +0800
From: Chen Gang <gang.chen@...anux.com>
To: Chen Gang F T <chen.gang.flying.transformer@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] kernel: audit_tree: resource management: need put_tree
and goto Err when failure occures
On 2013年04月20日 15:31, Chen Gang wrote:
> On 2013年04月18日 09:19, Chen Gang F T wrote:
>> > On 2013年04月18日 04:07, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>> >> > On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 12:04:02 +0800 Chen Gang <gang.chen@...anux.com> wrote:
>>>> >> >
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > since "normally audit_add_tree_rule() will free it on failure",
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > need free it completely, when failure occures.
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> >
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > need additional put_tree before return, since get_tree was called.
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > always need goto error processing area for list_del_init.
>>>> >> > Isn't that get_tree() in audit_add_tree_rule() simply unneeded? In
>>>> >> > other words, is this patch correct:
>>>> >> >
>
I hope the maintainers to provide your suggestions or completion. if we
get non-reply from any maintainers, I should continue to analyse.
if we continue analyse independent with original maintainers,
I think, before get a conclusion:
I should understand the API of audit: what it is, how to use it (test
it), know about all of sub-systems which are related with it (such as fs
sub-system);
also should know about the design of audit (read through the code),
and should analyse the lower-level design of audit tree (read the code
completely).
and excuse me, I am not quite familiar with audit, now, and also have to
plan to do another things, so I think I should get a conclusion within
next month (2013-05-31), is it ok ?
BTW:
my plan for 1st half of 2013 is mainly for familiar environments: can
provide contributes to many various sub systems (e.g. arm, powerpc,
drivers, net, kernel ...)
my plan for 2nd half of 2013 is mainly for familiar kernel: should
analyse the deeper issues and kernel API/design step by step (e.g. mm,
fs, kernel API documents...)
the original related mail:
http://linux-kernel.2935.n7.nabble.com/Consult-Plan-personal-contributes-plan-for-2013-td587319.html
> after reading code again, I think:
>
> we can remove the pair of get_tree() and put_tree(),
>
> a. the author want to pretect tree not to be freed after unlock audit_filter_mutex
> when tree is really freed by others, we have chance to check tree->goner
>
> b. it just like another functions done (audit_tag_tree, audit_trim_trees)
> for audit_add_tree_rule, also need let get_tree() protected by audit_filter_mutex.
> (move 'get_tree' before unlock audit_filter_mutex)
>
> c. but after read code (at least for audit_add_tree_rule)
> during unlock audit_filter_mutex in audit_add_tree_rule:
> I find only one posible related work flow which may happen (maybe it can not happen either).
> fsnotify_destroy_mark_locked ->
> audit_tree_freeing_mark ->
> evict_chunk ->
> kill_rules ->
> call_rcu ->
> audit_free_rule_rcu ->
> audit_free_rule
> it will free rules and entry, but it does not call put_tree().
>
> so I think, at least for audit_add_tree_rule, we can remove the pair of get_tree() and put_tree()
> (maybe also need give a check for audit_tag_tree and audit_trim_trees, whether can remove 'get_tree' too)
>
>
> and the process is incorrect after lock audit_filter_mutex again (line 701..705)
>
> a. if rule->rlist was really empty
> the 'rule' itself would already be freed.
> the caller and the caller of caller, need notice this (not double free)
> instead, we need check tree->gonar (and also need spin_lock protected).
>
> b. we do not need set "rule->tree = tree" again.
> i. if 'rule' is not touched by any other thread
> it should be rule->tree == tree.
>
> ii. else if rule->tree == NULL (freed by other thread)
> 'rule' itself might be freed too, we'd better return by failure.
>
> iii. else (!rule->tree && rule->tree != tree) (reused by other thread)
> firstly, it should not happen.
> if could happen, 'rule->tree = tree' would cause original rule->tree memory leak.
>
>
> my conclusion is only by reading code (and still I am not quite expert about it, either)
> so welcome experts (especially maintainers) to providing suggestions or completions.
>
> thanks.
>
>
> if no reply within a week (2013-04-28), I should send related patch.
>
> gchen.
>
> 653 /* called with audit_filter_mutex */
> 654 int audit_add_tree_rule(struct audit_krule *rule)
> 655 {
> 656 struct audit_tree *seed = rule->tree, *tree;
> 657 struct path path;
> 658 struct vfsmount *mnt;
> 659 int err;
> 660
> 661 list_for_each_entry(tree, &tree_list, list) {
> 662 if (!strcmp(seed->pathname, tree->pathname)) {
> 663 put_tree(seed);
> 664 rule->tree = tree;
> 665 list_add(&rule->rlist, &tree->rules);
> 666 return 0;
> 667 }
> 668 }
> 669 tree = seed;
> 670 list_add(&tree->list, &tree_list);
> 671 list_add(&rule->rlist, &tree->rules);
> 672 /* do not set rule->tree yet */
> 673 mutex_unlock(&audit_filter_mutex);
> 674
> 675 err = kern_path(tree->pathname, 0, &path);
> 676 if (err)
> 677 goto Err;
> 678 mnt = collect_mounts(&path);
> 679 path_put(&path);
> 680 if (IS_ERR(mnt)) {
> 681 err = PTR_ERR(mnt);
> 682 goto Err;
> 683 }
> 684
> 685 get_tree(tree);
> 686 err = iterate_mounts(tag_mount, tree, mnt);
> 687 drop_collected_mounts(mnt);
> 688
> 689 if (!err) {
> 690 struct node *node;
> 691 spin_lock(&hash_lock);
> 692 list_for_each_entry(node, &tree->chunks, list)
> 693 node->index &= ~(1U<<31);
> 694 spin_unlock(&hash_lock);
> 695 } else {
> 696 trim_marked(tree);
> 697 goto Err;
> 698 }
> 699
> 700 mutex_lock(&audit_filter_mutex);
> 701 if (list_empty(&rule->rlist)) {
> 702 put_tree(tree);
> 703 return -ENOENT;
> 704 }
> 705 rule->tree = tree;
> 706 put_tree(tree);
> 707
> 708 return 0;
> 709 Err:
> 710 mutex_lock(&audit_filter_mutex);
> 711 list_del_init(&tree->list);
> 712 list_del_init(&tree->rules);
> 713 put_tree(tree);
> 714 return err;
> 715 }
>
>
>
>
>> > excuse me:
>> > I am not quite familiar with it, and also have to do another things.
>> > so I have to spend additional time resource to make sure about it.
>> >
>> > is it ok ?
>> > I should make sure about it within this week (2013-04-21)
>> > I should finish related test (if need), within next week (2013-4-28)
>> >
>> > if have additional suggestions or completions, please reply.
>> > (if no reply, I will follow the time point above)
>> >
>> > thanks.
>> >
>> > gchen.
>> >
>> >
>
> -- Chen Gang Asianux Corporation
>
--
Chen Gang
Asianux Corporation
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists