linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] n_tty: Add memory barrier to fix race condition in receive path

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:	Thu, 6 Nov 2014 12:56:44 -0800
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	Måns Rullgård <mans@...sr.com>
Cc:	Christian Riesch <christian.riesch@...cron.at>,
	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] n_tty: Add memory barrier to fix race condition in
 receive path

On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 08:49:01PM +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 12:39:59PM +0100, Christian Riesch wrote:
> >> The current implementation of put_tty_queue() causes a race condition
> >> when re-arranged by the compiler.
> >> 
> >> On my build with gcc 4.8.3, cross-compiling for ARM, the line
> >> 
> >> 	*read_buf_addr(ldata, ldata->read_head++) = c;
> >> 
> >> was re-arranged by the compiler to something like
> >> 
> >> 	x = ldata->read_head
> >> 	ldata->read_head++
> >> 	*read_buf_addr(ldata, x) = c;
> >> 
> >> which causes a race condition. Invalid data is read if data is read
> >> before it is actually written to the read buffer.
> >
> > Really?  A compiler can rearange things like that and expect things to
> > actually work?  How is that valid?
> 
> This is actually required by the C spec.  There is a sequence point
> before a function call, after the arguments have been evaluated.  Thus
> all side-effects, such as the post-increment, must be complete before
> the function is called, just like in the example.
> 
> There is no "re-arranging" here.  The code is simply wrong.

Ah, ok, time to dig out the C spec...

Anyway, because of this, no need for the wmb() calls, just rearrange the
logic and all should be good, right?  Christian, can you test that
instead?

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/