linux-kernel - Re: timerfd: use-after-free in timerfd_remove

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 31 Jan 2017 13:09:50 +0100
From:   Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: timerfd: use-after-free in timerfd_remove_cancel

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2017, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>> >
>> > Seems that ctx->might_cancel is racy.
>>
>> Yes, it is. Fix below.
>
> And the fix is racy as well. Darn, we really need to lock the context to
> avoid that mess.

Yes. I think we need to lock most of timerfd_settime. Otherwise we can
end up with a timer that needs to be in the cancel list, but it is
actually not; or vice versa.