linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ipc,sem block sem_lock on sma->lock during sma initialization

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: <5470E0AC.50609@colorfullife.com>
Date:	Sat, 22 Nov 2014 20:14:52 +0100
From:	Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>,
	Rafael Aquini <aquini@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipc,sem block sem_lock on sma->lock during sma initialization

On 11/21/2014 09:29 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 11/21/2014 03:09 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 14:52:26 -0500 Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> When manipulating just one semaphore with semop, sem_lock only
>>> takes that single semaphore's lock. This creates a problem during
>>> initialization of the semaphore array, when the data structures
>>> used by sem_lock have not been set up yet. The sma->lock is
>>> already held by newary, and we just have to make sure everything
>>> else waits on that lock during initialization.
>>>
>>> Luckily it is easy to make sem_lock wait on the sma->lock, by
>>> pretending there is a complex operation in progress while the sma
>>> is being initialized.
>>>
>>> The newary function already zeroes sma->complex_count before
>>> unlocking the sma->lock.
>> What are the runtime effects of the bug?
>>
> NULL pointer dereference in spin_lock from sem_lock,
> if it is called before sma->sem_base has been pointed
> somewhere valid.
No, this can't happen:
- sma is initialized to 0 with memset()
- sma->sem_nsems is set last.
- semtimedop() contains a "max >= sma->sem_nsems".

with sma->sem_nsems==0, this will always fail and therefore sem_lock() 
can't be reached.

The only misbehavior (apart from returning -EFBIG) is that 
find_alloc_undo() could allocate a wrong-sized undo structure.
Would cause random memory corruptions - but not NULL pointer dereference.

Which which kernel version have you seen the NULL pointer dereference?

--
     Manfred
--
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/