linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] xen: Two possible sleep-in-atomic-context bugs in bind_evtchn_to

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: <add28699-59bc-dde7-e521-f21f550c8562@suse.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Jun 2018 08:57:12 +0200
From:   Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
To:     Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@...il.com>,
        Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>
Cc:     Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] xen: Two possible sleep-in-atomic-context bugs in
 bind_evtchn_to_irqhandler()

On 20/06/18 04:49, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
> The driver may sleep with holding a spinlock.
> The function call paths (from bottom to top) in Linux-4.16.7 are:
> 
> [FUNC] mutex_lock_nested --> can sleep
> drivers/xen/events/events_base.c, 839: mutex_lock_nested in
> bind_evtchn_to_irq
> drivers/xen/events/events_base.c, 1030: bind_evtchn_to_irq in
> bind_evtchn_to_irqhandler
> drivers/xen/pvcalls-front.c, 371: bind_evtchn_to_irqhandler in
> create_active
> drivers/xen/pvcalls-front.c, 417: create_active in pvcalls_front_connect
> drivers/xen/pvcalls-front.c, 410: spin_lock in pvcalls_front_connect
> 
> [FUNC] request_irq --> can sleep
> drivers/xen/events/events_base.c, 1003: request_irq in
> bind_evtchn_to_irqhandler
> drivers/xen/pvcalls-front.c, 371: bind_evtchn_to_irqhandler in
> create_active
> drivers/xen/pvcalls-front.c, 417: create_active in pvcalls_front_connect
> drivers/xen/pvcalls-front.c, 410: spin_lock in pvcalls_front_connect
> 
> These bugs are found by my static analysis tool (DSAC-2) and checked by my
> code review.
> 
> I do not know how to correctly fix these bugs, so I just report them.
> Maybe create_active() should not be called with holding a spinlock.

Right, I think calling create_active() should be done before taking the
lock. Stefano, what do you think?


Juergen