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  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:	Tue, 6 Oct 2015 14:44:04 -0700
From:	Lee Duncan <lduncan@...e.com>
To:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Cc:	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.com>,
	Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 1/1] SCSI: update hosts module to use idr index
 management

On 10/06/2015 12:19 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-10-06 at 12:08 -0700, Lee Duncan wrote:
>> Update the SCSI hosts module to use idr to manage
>> its host_no index instead of an ATOMIC integer. This
>> also allows using idr_find() to look up the SCSI
>> host structure given the host number.
>>
>> This means that the SCSI host number will now
>> be reclaimable.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Lee Duncan <lduncan@...e.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/scsi/hosts.c | 61 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------
>>  1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/hosts.c b/drivers/scsi/hosts.c
>> index 8bb173e01084..afe7bd962ddb 100644
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/hosts.c
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/hosts.c
> [...]
>> +	spin_lock(&host_index_lock);
>> +	shost = idr_find(&host_index_idr, hostnum);
>> +	spin_unlock(&host_index_lock);
>> +
>> +	return shost ? scsi_host_get(shost) : NULL;
> 
> So the thing I don't like here is that there's a race between
> scsi_host_get() and the final put.  What could happen is that idr_find()
> returns the host just before but scsi_host_dev_release() is executed
> before the return.  In that instance, we'll reference freed memory in
> scsi_host_get() ... probably completely harmlessly, but it will show up
> occasionally on some of the traces ... particularly the ones doing a
> fuzz/stress test around host create/destroy.
> 
> James

Good point. The scenario you mention may be a corner case, but I also
don't like it. I cannot see another good way to synchronize lookup and
removal other than adding a new lock, which would be dumb.

I will submit my "host number" patch again, without the change to
scsi_host_lookup().

-- 
Lee Duncan
--
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