linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] tracing: Atomically get refcounts of event_call and trace

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: <51D63047.7060409@hitachi.com>
Date:	Fri, 05 Jul 2013 11:32:39 +0900
From:	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	jovi.zhangwei@...wei.com, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] tracing: Atomically get refcounts of event_call and
 trace_array

(2013/07/05 9:32), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 07/04, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>>
>> Currently ftrace_open_generic_file gets an event_file from
>> inode->i_private, and then locks event_mutex and gets refcount.
>> However, this can cause a race as below scenario;
>>
>> CPU0                              CPU1
>> open(kprobe_events)
>>   trace_remove_event_call()    open(enable)
>>     lock event_mutex             get event_file from inode->i_private
>>       event_remove()             wait for unlock event_mutex
>>         ...
>>         free event_file
>>     unlock event_mutex
>>                                  lock event_mutex
>>                                  add refcount of event_file->call (*)
>>
>> So, at (*) point, the event_file is already freed and we
>> may access the corrupted object.
> 
> Yes, but the same can happen with event_call, so it seems that
> this patch is not enough too.

Oops, right!

> Say, open(id) can take event_mutex when the caller of
> trace_remove_event_call() has already freed ftrace_event_call.
> 
> Or I missed something...
> 
> Perhaps we can rely on d_unlinked() ? IOW, the caller of
> __ftrace_event_call_get() should take event_mutex, check
> d_unhashed(f_dentry) and only then do _get().

It sounds a good idea! :)

Thank you!

> 
> Nasty, I agree.
> 
> Oleg.
> 
> 


-- 
Masami HIRAMATSU
IT Management Research Dept. Linux Technology Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com


--
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/