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  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 20:27:48 +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:
>
> 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?

And if we introduce this helper, it would better to check "sighand != NULL"
after "task != *ptask":

	struct task_struct *xxx(struct task_struct **ptask)
	{
		struct task_struct *task;
		struct sighand_struct *sighand;

	retry:
		task = ACCESS_ONCE(*ptask);
		if (!task)
			return task;

		if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC)) {
			if (probe_kernel_read(&sighand, &task->sighand, sizeof(sighand)))
				goto retry;
		} else {
			sighand = task->sighand;
		}
		/*
		 * 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 (unlikely(task != ACCESS_ONCE(*ptask)))
			goto retry;
		/*
		 * release_task(task) was already called, potentially before
		 * the caller took rcu_read_lock() and in this case it can be
		 * freed before rcu_read_unlock().
		 */
		if (!sighand)
			return NULL;
		return task;
	}

Of course, task_numa_compare() do not really need "retry", and task == NULL
is not possible. But this way the new helper can (probably) have more users,
and this just looks better imo.

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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists