[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150807193055.GD23305@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 15:30:55 -0400
From: Aristeu Rozanski <aris@...hat.com>
To: "Herton R. Krzesinski" <herton@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>,
Rafael Aquini <aquini@...hat.com>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, djeffery@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipc,sem: fix use after free on IPC_RMID after a task
using same semaphore set exits
On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 02:09:35PM -0300, Herton R. Krzesinski wrote:
> The current semaphore code allows a potential use after free: in exit_sem we may
> free the task's sem_undo_list while there is still another task looping through
> the same semaphore set and cleaning the sem_undo list at freeary function (the
> task called IPC_RMID for the same semaphore set).
>
> For example, with a test program [1] running which keeps forking a lot of processes
> (which then do a semop call with SEM_UNDO flag), and with the parent right after
> removing the semaphore set with IPC_RMID, and a kernel built with CONFIG_SLAB,
> CONFIG_SLAB_DEBUG and CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK, you can easily see something like
> the following in the kernel log:
(snip)
> Signed-off-by: Herton R. Krzesinski <herton@...hat.com>
> ---
> ipc/sem.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/ipc/sem.c b/ipc/sem.c
> index bc3d530..35ccddd 100644
> --- a/ipc/sem.c
> +++ b/ipc/sem.c
> @@ -2074,17 +2074,24 @@ void exit_sem(struct task_struct *tsk)
> rcu_read_lock();
> un = list_entry_rcu(ulp->list_proc.next,
> struct sem_undo, list_proc);
> - if (&un->list_proc == &ulp->list_proc)
> - semid = -1;
> - else
> - semid = un->semid;
> + if (&un->list_proc == &ulp->list_proc) {
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> + /* Make sure we wait for any place still referencing
> + * the current ulp to finish */
> + synchronize_rcu();
> + break;
> + }
> + spin_lock(&ulp->lock);
> + semid = un->semid;
> + spin_unlock(&ulp->lock);
>
> + /* exit_sem raced with IPC_RMID, nothing to do */
> if (semid == -1) {
> rcu_read_unlock();
> - break;
> + continue;
> }
>
> - sma = sem_obtain_object_check(tsk->nsproxy->ipc_ns, un->semid);
> + sma = sem_obtain_object_check(tsk->nsproxy->ipc_ns, semid);
> /* exit_sem raced with IPC_RMID, nothing to do */
> if (IS_ERR(sma)) {
> rcu_read_unlock();
> @@ -2112,9 +2119,10 @@ void exit_sem(struct task_struct *tsk)
> ipc_assert_locked_object(&sma->sem_perm);
> list_del(&un->list_id);
>
> - spin_lock(&ulp->lock);
> + /* we should be the last process using this ulp, so no need
> + * to acquire ulp->lock here; we are also protected against
> + * IPC_RMID as we hold sma->sem_perm.lock */
> list_del_rcu(&un->list_proc);
> - spin_unlock(&ulp->lock);
>
> /* perform adjustments registered in un */
> for (i = 0; i < sma->sem_nsems; i++) {
I was debugging the same issue and can confirm this fix works and makes
sense.
Acked-by: Aristeu Rozanski <aris@...hat.com>
--
Aristeu
--
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