linux-kernel - Re: Re: [PATCH] fix memory leak on kvm_vm_ioctl_create_spapr

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: <20170828052808.GH5426@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:   Mon, 28 Aug 2017 06:28:08 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:     Paul Mackerras <paulus@...abs.org>
Cc:     Nixiaoming <nixiaoming@...wei.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        "agraf@...e.com" <agraf@...e.com>,
        "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        "rkrcmar@...hat.com" <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        "benh@...nel.crashing.org" <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        "mpe@...erman.id.au" <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        "kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org" <kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] fix memory leak on kvm_vm_ioctl_create_spapr_tce

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 02:38:37PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 10:02:20PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 04:06:24PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > 
> > > It seems to me that it would be better to do the anon_inode_getfd()
> > > call before the kvm_get_kvm() call, and go to the fail label if it
> > > fails.
> > 
> > And what happens if another thread does close() on the (guessed) fd?
> 
> Chaos ensues, but mostly because we don't have proper mutual exclusion
> on the modifications to the list.  I'll add a mutex_lock/unlock to
> kvm_spapr_tce_release() and move the anon_inode_getfd() call inside
> the mutex.
> 
> It looks like the other possible uses of the fd (mmap, and passing it
> as a parameter to the KVM_DEV_VFIO_GROUP_SET_SPAPR_TCE ioctl on a KVM
> device fd) are safe.

Frankly, it's a lot saner to have "no failure points past anon_inode_getfd()"
policy...