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, 10 Nov 2014 08:51:54 +0100
From:	Christian Riesch <>
To:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <>
Cc:	Måns Rullgård <>,
	Jiri Slaby <>,
	"" <>,
	Peter Hurley <>,
	stable <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] n_tty: Add memory barrier to fix race condition in
 receive path

On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 9:56 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 08:49:01PM +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> Greg Kroah-Hartman <> 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?

I ran a test with the patch that I posted in my first email for the
last 4 days. No communication errors occurred so the patch actually
fixes my problem. I will run another test as suggested by Greg, just
with rearranging the logic.
Best regards, Christian
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists