linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kernel/futex: handle the case where we got a "late" waiter

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: <20160419222737.GA27058@linux-uzut.site>
Date:	Tue, 19 Apr 2016 15:27:37 -0700
From:	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To:	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/futex: handle the case where we got a "late"
 waiter

On Fri, 15 Apr 2016, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:

>futex_unlock_pi() gets uval before taking the hb lock. Now imagine
>someone in futex_lock_pi() took the lock. While futex_unlock_pi() waits
>for the hb lock, the LOCK_PI sets FUTEX_WAITERS and drops the lock.
>Now, futex_unlock_pi() figures out that there is waiter and invokes
>wake_futex_pi() with the old uval which does not yet have FUTEX_WAITERS
>set. This flaw lets cmpxchg_futex_value_locked() fail and return -EINVAL.

Hmm but if we're calling futex_unlock_pi() in the first place, doesn't that
indicate that the uval already has FUTEX_WAITERS and therefore failed the
TID->0 transition in userland? That or the thread is bogusly unlocking a
lock that it doesn't own.

This is of course different than the requeue_pi case which can specify
set_waiters but also gets the value via get_futex_value_locked().

Is this a real issue or did you find it by code inspection?

Thanks,
Davidlohr