[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150928102314.GB3556@pd.tnic>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 12:23:14 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, luto@...nel.org,
dvlasenk@...hat.com, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@...il.com>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arch/x86: fix out-of-bounds in get_wchan()
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:49:18AM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> Original code did:
>
> if (p->thread.sp < stack || p->thread.sp >= stack+THREAD_SIZE)
> return 0;
> fp = *(u64 *)(p->thread.sp);
>
> p->thread.sp can change concurrently.
> So we could check that p->thread.sp is within stack bounds, but then
> dereference another value (which is already outside of bounds).
Right, we do deref it. I realized that after hitting "Send" :\
Which begs another, probably also stupid, question:
What guarantees the task won't disappear after we've checked p?
I.e., after this:
if (!p || p == current || p->state == TASK_RUNNING)
return 0;
Thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
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