linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] staging: lustre: add error handling for try_module

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]

Message-ID: <87k1r2j3m8.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
Date:   Wed, 13 Jun 2018 22:02:55 +1000
From:   NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
        'Zhouyang Jia' <jiazhouyang09@...il.com>
Cc:     Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@...el.com>,
        Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...el.com>,
        James Simmons <jsimmons@...radead.org>,
        "Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Haneen Mohammed <hamohammed.sa@...il.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@...eddedor.com>,
        "lustre-devel\@lists.lustre.org" <lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org>,
        "devel\@driverdev.osuosl.org" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
        "linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] staging: lustre: add error handling for try_module_get

On Wed, Jun 13 2018, David Laight wrote:

> From: Zhouyang Jia
>> Sent: 12 June 2018 05:49
>> 
>> When try_module_get fails, the lack of error-handling code may
>> cause unexpected results.
>> 
>> This patch adds error-handling code after calling try_module_get.
> ...
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/klnds/socklnd/socklnd.c
>> @@ -2422,7 +2422,10 @@ ksocknal_base_startup(void)
>> 
>>  	/* flag lists/ptrs/locks initialised */
>>  	ksocknal_data.ksnd_init = SOCKNAL_INIT_DATA;
>> -	try_module_get(THIS_MODULE);
>> +	if (!try_module_get(THIS_MODULE)) {
>> +		CERROR("%s: cannot get module\n", __func__);
>> +		goto failed;
>> +	}
>
>
> Can try_module_get(THIS_MODULE) ever fail?

Yes.

> Since you are running code in 'THIS_MODULE' the caller must have a
> reference that can't go away.

Not necessarily, though it does usually work that way.

try_module_get() can fail while the exit function is running, but it is
safe to run code in the module until the exit function completes.
So if the exit function takes a lock, then other code can safely run
code in the module while holding the lock, but not holding a reference
to the module.  If this code calls try_module_get(), it could fail.

That is exactly what is happening here.
ksoclnd_exit() calls lnet_unregister_lnd() which takes
the_lnet.ln_lnd_mutex.

ksocknal_base_startup() is called from ksocknal_startup()
which is the_ksocklnd.lnd_startup and is called, from
lnet_startup_lndni(), with that lock held.

> So try_module_get() just increments the count that is already greater
> than zero.
>
> Similarly module_put(THIS_MODULE) must never be able to release the
> last reference.

It can if a suitable lock is held.

> Any such calls that aren't in error paths after try_module_get() are
> probably buggy.
Being in an error path doesn't make it safe.
module_put(THIS_MODULE) can only be safe if a lock is held which
prevents the exit function from completing.  Some code outside the
module must release the lock.

Having said that, I don't really like this approach.  I much prefer for
the module reference to be taken and put outside of the module - it
seems less error-prone.

NeilBrown

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (833 bytes)