linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tty: make sure a BUG is hit if tty

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: <5196C02C.2080707@ahsoftware.de>
Date:	Sat, 18 May 2013 01:41:32 +0200
From:	Alexander Holler <holler@...oftware.de>
To:	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
CC:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty: make sure a BUG is hit if tty_port will be destroyed
 before tty

Am 18.05.2013 00:51, schrieb Peter Hurley:
> On 05/17/2013 03:43 PM, Alexander Holler wrote:
>> Am 17.05.2013 21:22, schrieb Alexander Holler:
>>
>>> The case that the machine didn't die, but just the process, only happens
>>> when my proposed patch is applied, which prevents the memory corruption.
>>
>> In short, the proposed BUG_ON() prevents the memory corruption because
>> it is hit before something bad can happen. The result is that just the
>> process in question will be killed (and a tty is not released), but only
>> that BUG_ON() prevents that something _really_ bad happens.
>>
>> I hope I could describe it now clearly. ;)
>
> Your descriptions have been clear and I understood your meaning. However,
> I think you may have misunderstood my suggestion.
>
> Would you please test the patch below?
>
> --- >% ---
> Subject: [PATCH] tty: Prevent tty_port destruction if tty not released
>
> If the tty driver mistakenly drops the last port reference
> before the tty has been released, issue a diagnostic and
> abort the port destruction.
>
> This will leak memory and may zombify the port, but should
> otherwise keep the machine in runnable state.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
> ---
>   drivers/tty/tty_port.c | 4 ++++
>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/tty/tty_port.c b/drivers/tty/tty_port.c
> index 6d9e0b2..a4f4fa9 100644
> --- a/drivers/tty/tty_port.c
> +++ b/drivers/tty/tty_port.c
> @@ -140,6 +140,10 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(tty_port_destroy);
>   static void tty_port_destructor(struct kref *kref)
>   {
>       struct tty_port *port = container_of(kref, struct tty_port, kref);
> +
> +    /* check if last port ref was dropped before tty release */
> +    if (WARN_ON(port->itty))
> +        return;
>       if (port->xmit_buf)
>           free_page((unsigned long)port->xmit_buf);
>       tty_port_destroy(port);

I don't have to test this, I see what will happen. Sorry, but I'm 
exhausted and need a break dealing with lkml and maintainers.

Regards,

Alexander Holler
--
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/