linux-kernel - Re: 3.14-rc2 XFS backtrace because irqs

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: <20140215174345.GA24799@redhat.com>
Date:	Sat, 15 Feb 2014 18:43:45 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, xfs@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: 3.14-rc2 XFS backtrace because irqs_disabled.

On 02/15, Al Viro wrote:
>
> > Ouch...  I think I see what you mean.  Let me see if I got it right:
> > timer->sigq is *not* freed by collect_signal(); it's done by
> > release_posix_timer() instead, under siglock.  Frankly, this
> >         /*
> >          * If it is queued it will be freed when dequeued,
> >          * like the "regular" sigqueue.
> >          */
> >         if (!list_empty(&q->list))
> >                 q = NULL;
> > in sigqueue_free() smells like it's asking for races.  Sigh...

This is protected by ->siglock, should be safe...

> So basically we want a different condition for "can we just go ahead and
> free that sucker", right?  Instead of "it's on the list, shan't free it"
> it ought to be something like "it's on the list or it is referenced by
> ksiginfo".  Locking will be interesting, though... ;-/

I guess yes... send_sigqueue() checks list_empty() too, probably nobody else.


> BTW, I really wonder how does that stuff interact with PTRACE_SETSIGINFO.
> What happens if tracer does PTRACE_GETSIGINFO, changes ->si_signo to
> something blocked, shoves it back with PTRACE_SETSIGINFO and does
> PTRACE_CONT with that new signal number?  Would we get two sigqueue instances
> with the same ->si_tid, one of them matching the timer->sigq and another
> - not?

Or the task sends a SI_TIMER info to itself via sys_rt_sigqueueinfo().

Afaics, nothing really bad can happen, I mean the kernel should not
crash or something like this. do_schedule_next_timer() can be fooled,
but at least lock_timer() can only succeed if this process actually
has a timer with the same timer_id. This sigqueue != timer->sigq, but
I think this doesn't matter, posix_timer_event() will use timer->sigq
anyway.

Oleg.

--
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/