linux-kernel - [PATCH 3.19.y-ckt 017/196] rfkill: fix rfkill_fop_read wait

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: <1457483454-30115-18-git-send-email-kamal@canonical.com>
Date:	Tue,  8 Mar 2016 16:27:55 -0800
From:	Kamal Mostafa <kamal@...onical.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-team@...ts.ubuntu.com
Cc:	Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>,
	Kamal Mostafa <kamal@...onical.com>
Subject: [PATCH 3.19.y-ckt 017/196] rfkill: fix rfkill_fop_read wait_event usage

3.19.8-ckt16 -stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

---8<------------------------------------------------------------

From: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>

commit 6736fde9672ff6717ac576e9bba2fd5f3dfec822 upstream.

The code within wait_event_interruptible() is called with
!TASK_RUNNING, so mustn't call any functions that can sleep,
like mutex_lock().

Since we re-check the list_empty() in a loop after the wait,
it's safe to simply use list_empty() without locking.

This bug has existed forever, but was only discovered now
because all userspace implementations, including the default
'rfkill' tool, use poll() or select() to get a readable fd
before attempting to read.

Fixes: c64fb01627e24 ("rfkill: create useful userspace interface")
Reported-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Kamal Mostafa <kamal@...onical.com>
---
 net/rfkill/core.c | 16 ++++------------
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/rfkill/core.c b/net/rfkill/core.c
index 4b333ed..11c5d22 100644
--- a/net/rfkill/core.c
+++ b/net/rfkill/core.c
@@ -1081,17 +1081,6 @@ static unsigned int rfkill_fop_poll(struct file *file, poll_table *wait)
 	return res;
 }
 
-static bool rfkill_readable(struct rfkill_data *data)
-{
-	bool r;
-
-	mutex_lock(&data->mtx);
-	r = !list_empty(&data->events);
-	mutex_unlock(&data->mtx);
-
-	return r;
-}
-
 static ssize_t rfkill_fop_read(struct file *file, char __user *buf,
 			       size_t count, loff_t *pos)
 {
@@ -1108,8 +1097,11 @@ static ssize_t rfkill_fop_read(struct file *file, char __user *buf,
 			goto out;
 		}
 		mutex_unlock(&data->mtx);
+		/* since we re-check and it just compares pointers,
+		 * using !list_empty() without locking isn't a problem
+		 */
 		ret = wait_event_interruptible(data->read_wait,
-					       rfkill_readable(data));
+					       !list_empty(&data->events));
 		mutex_lock(&data->mtx);
 
 		if (ret)
-- 
2.7.0