linux-kernel - Re: [3.10] Oopses in kmem_cache_allocate() via prepare

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: <20130819212441.17880.16729@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Mon, 19 Aug 2013 17:24:41 -0400
From:	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...ionio.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
CC:	Simon Kirby <sim@...tway.ca>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [3.10] Oopses in kmem_cache_allocate() via prepare_creds()

Quoting Linus Torvalds (2013-08-19 17:16:36)
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Aug 2013, Simon Kirby wrote:
> >
> >>    [... ]  The
> >> alloc/free traces are always the same -- always alloc_pipe_info and
> >> free_pipe_info. This is seen on 3.10 and (now) 3.11-rc4:
> >>
> >> Object ffff880090f19e78: 6b 6b 6b 6b 6c 6b 6b 6b 6b 6b 6b 6b 6b 6b 6b 6b  kkkklkkkkkkkkkkk
> >
> > This looks like an increment after free in the second 32 bit value of the
> > structure. First 32 bit value's poison is unchanged.
> 
> Ugh. If that is "struct pipe_inode_info" and I read it right, that's
> the "wait_lock" spinlock that is part of the mutex.
> 
> Doing a "spin_lock()" could indeed cause an increment operation. But
> it still sounds like a very odd case. And even for some wild pointer
> I'd then expect the spin_unlock to also happen, and to then increment
> the next byte (or word) too. More importantly, for a mutex, I'd expect
> the *other* fields to be corrupted too (the "waiter" field etc). That
> is, unless we're still spinning waiting for the mutex, but with that
> value we shouldn't, as far as I can see.
> 

Simon, is this box doing btrfs send/receive?  If so, it's probably where
this pipe is coming from.

Linus' CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGE_ALLOC suggestions are going to be the fastest
way to find it, I can give you a patch if it'll help.

It would be nice if you could trigger this on plain 3.11-rcX instead of
btrfs-next.

-chris
--
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/