[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140221122101.GA10170@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:21:02 -0300
From: Rafael Aquini <aquini@...hat.com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: 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 Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 01:17:44PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> 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?
>
Yes, and in a quick glance through the tree it seems we have several
codesites where we can find such condition likely to happen,
unfortunately.
--
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