linux-kernel - Re: sched: memory corruption on completing completions

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: <20150204154618.36511661ab558c0a9e047a77@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 4 Feb 2015 15:46:18 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrey Ryabinin <a.ryabinin@...sung.com>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...emonkey.org.uk>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: sched: memory corruption on completing completions

On Wed, 04 Feb 2015 18:24:06 -0500 Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> I was fuzzing with trinity on a -next kernel with the KASan patchset, and
> got what initially appeared to be a rather odd trace:
> 
> ...
>
> 
> I now have a theory for why it happens:
> 
> Thread A				Thread B
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> [Enter function]
> DECLARE_COMPLETION_ONSTACK(x)
> wait_for_completion(x)
> 					complete(x)
> 					[In complete(x):]
> 				        spin_lock_irqsave(&x->wait.lock, flags);
> 				        x->done++;
> 				        __wake_up_locked(&x->wait, TASK_NORMAL, 1);
> [Done waiting, wakes up]
> [Exit function]
> 				        spin_unlock_irqrestore(&x->wait.lock, flags);
> 
> 
> 
> So the spin_unlock_irqrestore() at the end of complete() would proceed to corruption
> the stack of thread A.

But wait_for_completion() takes ->wait.lock as well, which should
provide the needed synchronization (__wait_for_common,
do_wait_for_common).  I'm not seeing a hole in the logic, but it looks
like there might be one.
--
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/