linux-kernel - [PATCH 3.12 2/5] ratelimit: fix bug in time interval by resetting right begin time

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: <b3375cabc4a6276bf8118d7e0922a9fe366b9d65.1476953088.git.jslaby@suse.cz>
Date:   Thu, 20 Oct 2016 10:45:17 +0200
From:   Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
To:     stable@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jaewon Kim <jaewon31.kim@...sung.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Subject: [PATCH 3.12 2/5] ratelimit: fix bug in time interval by resetting right begin time

From: Jaewon Kim <jaewon31.kim@...sung.com>

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

===============

commit c2594bc37f4464bc74f2c119eb3269a643400aa0 upstream.

rs->begin in ratelimit is set in two cases.
 1) when rs->begin was not initialized
 2) when rs->interval was passed

For case #2, current ratelimit sets the begin to 0.  This incurrs
improper suppression.  The begin value will be set in the next ratelimit
call by 1).  Then the time interval check will be always false, and
rs->printed will not be initialized.  Although enough time passed,
ratelimit may return 0 if rs->printed is not less than rs->burst.  To
reset interval properly, begin should be jiffies rather than 0.

For an example code below:

    static DEFINE_RATELIMIT_STATE(mylimit, 1, 1);
    for (i = 1; i <= 10; i++) {
        if (__ratelimit(&mylimit))
            printk("ratelimit test count %d\n", i);
        msleep(3000);
    }

test result in the current code shows suppression even there is 3 seconds sleep.

  [  78.391148] ratelimit test count 1
  [  81.295988] ratelimit test count 2
  [  87.315981] ratelimit test count 4
  [  93.336267] ratelimit test count 6
  [  99.356031] ratelimit test count 8
  [ 105.376367] ratelimit test count 10

Signed-off-by: Jaewon Kim <jaewon31.kim@...sung.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
---
 lib/ratelimit.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/lib/ratelimit.c b/lib/ratelimit.c
index 40e03ea2a967..2c5de86460c5 100644
--- a/lib/ratelimit.c
+++ b/lib/ratelimit.c
@@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ int ___ratelimit(struct ratelimit_state *rs, const char *func)
 		if (rs->missed)
 			printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: %d callbacks suppressed\n",
 				func, rs->missed);
-		rs->begin   = 0;
+		rs->begin   = jiffies;
 		rs->printed = 0;
 		rs->missed  = 0;
 	}
-- 
2.10.1