linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] cgroup: fix a race between cgroup_mount() and cgroup_kill

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: <53AD1001.4090405@huawei.com>
Date:	Fri, 27 Jun 2014 14:32:33 +0800
From:	Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] cgroup: fix a race between cgroup_mount() and cgroup_kill_sb()

On 2014/6/25 23:00, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hey,
> 
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 09:56:31AM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
>>> Hmmm?  Why does that matter?  The only region in cgroup_mount() which
>>> needs to be put inside such mutex would be root lookup, no?
>>
>> unfortunately that won't help. I think what you suggest is:
>>
>> cgroup_mount()
>> {
>> 	mutex_lock();
>> 	lookup_cgroup_root();
>> 	mutex_unlock();
>> 	kernfs_mount();
>> }
>>
>> cgroup_kill_sb()
>> {
>> 	mutex_lock();
>> 	percpu_ref_kill();
>> 	mutex_Unlock();
>> 	kernfs_kill_sb();
>> }
>>
>> See, we may still be destroying the superblock after we've succeeded
>> in getting the refcnt of cgroup root.
> 
> Sure, but now the decision to kill is synchronized so the other side
> can interlock with it.  e.g.
> 
> cgroup_mount()
> {
> 	mutex_lock();
> 	lookup_cgroup_root();
> 	if (root isn't killed yet)
> 		root->this_better_stay_alive++;
> 	mutex_unlock();
> 	kernfs_mount();
> }
> 
> cgroup_kill_sb()
> {
> 	mutex_lock();
> 	if (check whether root can be killed)
> 		percpu_ref_kill();
> 	mutex_unlock();
> 	if (the above condition was true)
> 		kernfs_kill_sb();
> }
> 

This looks nasty, and I don't think it's correct. If we skip the call
to kernfs_kill_sb(), kernfs_super_info won't be freed but super_block
will, so we will end up either leaking memory or accessing invalid
memory. There are other problems like returning with sb->s_umount still
held.

--
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/