[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170314140302.GA28146@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 15:03:02 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: perf: use-after-free in perf_release
On 03/14, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> Yes, this looks buggy. But I cannot explain how that would result in the
> observed use-after-free.
Yes...
Suppose that copy_process() fails after perf_event_init_task(). In this
case perf_event_free_task() does put_ctx(), but if this ctx has another
reference (ctx->refcount > 1) then ctx->task will point to the already
freed task, copy_process() does free_task() at the end of error path.
And we can't replace it with put_task_struct().
I am looking at TASK_TOMBSTONE, perhaps perf_event_free_task() should
use it too?
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists