linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] act_ife: sleeping functions called in atomic context

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]

Date:	Thu, 16 Jun 2016 19:14:36 -0700
From:	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Cc:	Alexey Khoroshilov <khoroshilov@...ras.ru>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, ldv-project@...uxtesting.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] act_ife: sleeping functions called in atomic context

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com> wrote:
> On 16-06-16 05:43 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Alexey Khoroshilov
>> <khoroshilov@...ras.ru> wrote:
>>>
>>> tcf_ife_init() contains a big chunk of code executed with
>>> ife->tcf_lock spinlock held. But that code contains several calls
>>> to sleeping functions:
>>>    populate_metalist() and use_all_metadata()
>>>      -> add_metainfo()
>>>        -> find_ife_oplist(metaid)
>>>          -> read_lock()
>>>          -> try_module_get(o->owner)
>>>        -> kzalloc(sizeof(*mi), GFP_KERNEL);
>>
>>
>> Hmm, we don't need to hold that spinlock when we create a new ife action,
>> since we haven't inserted it yet. We do need it when we modify an existing
>> one. So I am thinking if we can refactor that code to avoid spinlock
>> whenever possible.
>>
>
> Does attached (compile tested) patch help?

You at least miss the unlock in load_metaops_and_vet()?

I think we can just remove that tcf_lock, I am testing a patch now.