linux-kernel - Re: Possible ABA in use of llist.h llist_del_first() in tty_buffer and ib

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1934237589.41303.1459417221186.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Date:	Thu, 31 Mar 2016 09:40:21 +0000 (UTC)
From:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Possible ABA in use of llist.h llist_del_first() in tty_buffer
 and ib_rdma

CCing LKML.

----- On Mar 31, 2016, at 5:39 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Code review (really: grepping the Linux kernel for
> llist_del_first) leads me to notice two possible ABA issues.
> The first one is in drivers/tty/tty_buffer.c, and is due to
> its use of llist_del_all and llist_del_first without locking
> since commit 809850b7a5 "tty: Use lockless flip buffer free list".
> 
> Unfortunately, it appears to do so without respecting the
> locking requirements associated with llist_del_first.
> 
> Quoting llist.h:
> 
> " * If there are multiple producers and one consumer, llist_add can be
> * used in producers and llist_del_all or llist_del_first can be used
> * in the consumer.
> *
> * This can be summarized as follow:
> *
> *           |   add    | del_first |  del_all
> * add       |    -     |     -     |     -
> * del_first |          |     L     |     L
> * del_all   |          |           |     -
> *
> * Where "-" stands for no lock is needed, while "L" stands for lock
> * is needed.
> "
> 
> As soon as a llist_del_first() is used, then both llist_del_first()
> and llist_del_all() need to be protected by a lock, thus preventing
> ABA in llist_del_first().
> 
> An alternative to locking would be to only use llist_del_all() and
> never llist_del_first().
> 
> I'm also noticing a similar concurrent use of llist_del_first() and
> llist_del_all() in commit 1bc144b625 "net, rds, Replace xlist in net/rds/xlist.h
> with llist".
> The locking surrounding their use (especially in rds_ib_reuse_mr)
> don't appear clearly documented there. Perhaps there was a preexisting
> issue with the xlist.h use too ?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mathieu
> 
> --
> Mathieu Desnoyers
> EfficiOS Inc.
> http://www.efficios.com

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com