[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <530646C8.1070206@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 13:17:44 -0500
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, Mateusz Guzik <mguzik@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kref: oops on zero or negative refcount
On 02/20/2014 01:14 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 06:44:59PM +0100, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> > In use after free situations, it is possible for one thread to write to
> > memory that has just been reallocated to a new user. This could open up
> > potential security issues.
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/kref.h b/include/linux/kref.h
> > index 484604d..c3f8a0a 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/kref.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/kref.h
> > @@ -43,8 +43,10 @@ static inline void kref_get(struct kref *kref)
> > /* If refcount was 0 before incrementing then we have a race
> > * condition when this kref is freeing by some other thread right now.
> > * In this case one should use kref_get_unless_zero()
> > + *
> > + * Terminate the current thread to stop potential security exploits.
> > */
> > - WARN_ON_ONCE(atomic_inc_return(&kref->refcount) < 2);
> > + BUG_ON(atomic_inc_return(&kref->refcount) < 2);
>
> This isn't "terminating the thread", this is "lock up the box".
Only if kref_get holds a lock while encountering a refcount
underflow, right?
--
All rights reversed
--
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