linux-kernel - Re: [patch v4 resend 2/2] kcmp: Add KCMP_EPOLL

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170513014508.GA21900@outlook.office365.com>
Date:   Fri, 12 May 2017 18:45:09 -0700
From:   Andrei Vagin <avagin@...tuozzo.com>
To:     Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
CC:     Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, <akpm@...uxfoundation.org>,
        <xemul@...tuozzo.com>,
        Michael Kerrisk-manpages <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
        <avagin@...nvz.org>, <jbaron@...mai.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Subject: Re: [patch v4 resend 2/2] kcmp: Add KCMP_EPOLL_TFD mode to compare
 epoll target files

On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 01:53:40AM +0300, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 12:41:30AM +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> > [resending as plaintext]
> > 
> > I realize that the existing kcmp code has the same issue, but:
> > 
> > Why are you not taking a reference to filp or filp_tgt? This can end up
> > performing a comparison between a pointer to a freed struct file and a
> > pointer to a struct file that was allocated afterwards, right? So it can
> > return a false "is equal" result when the two files aren't actually the same
> > if one of the target tasks is running? This looks like it unnecessarily
> > exposes information about whether an allocation reuses the memory of
> > a previously freed allocation.
> 
> It work with unlocked data on purpose for speed sake. Moreover even
> if we grap a reference it is valid _only_ during comparision operation,
> next we drop ref and it can be easily freed by os. Thus it's up to
> a caller to keep references to files/task and other resources used.

Looks like we can take rcu_read_lock() to guarantee that these objects
will not be freed, and rcu_read_lock() should not affect perfomance too much.

> 
> 	Cyrill