linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] sched/numa: fix unsafe get_task_struct() in task_numa

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]

Date:	Mon, 20 Oct 2014 18:56:14 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...allels.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>,
	Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@...dex.ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] sched/numa: fix unsafe get_task_struct() in
	task_numa_assign()

On 10/20, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> Again, perhaps we will need to change the lifetime rules for task_struct
> anyway, if we have more problems like this. But until then this looks like
> an overkill to me. Plus rq_curr_if_not_put() looks too subtle, and it is
> not generic.

Yes... otoh, perhaps we can do something more generic? Something like

	struct task_struct *xxx(struct task_struct **ptask)
	{
		struct task_struct *task;
		void *sighand;
	retry:
		task = ACCESS_ONCE(*ptask);
		if (!task)
			return NULL;

		if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC)) {
			if (probe_kernel_read(&sighand, &task->sighand, sizeof(sighand)))
				goto retry;
		} else {
			sighand = task->sighand;
		}

		if (!sighand)
			return NULL;
		/*
		 * Pairs with atomic_dec_and_test() in put_task_struct(task).
		 * If we have read the freed/reused memory, we must see that
		 * the pointer was updated.
		 */
		smp_rmb();
		if (task != ACCESS_ONCE(*ptask))
			goto retry;

		return task;
	}

task_numa_compare() can do cur = xxx(&rc->curr), but this helper can work
with any "task_struct *" pointer assuming that somehow this pointer is
cleared or changed before the final put_task_struct().

What do you think? Peter?

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/