linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] kernel: kcov: a possible sleep-in-atomic-context bug in kcov

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: <3dc2431d-e474-a3b6-c6c9-9f7079a9cb9b@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Jun 2018 11:50:54 +0800
From:   Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@...il.com>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dvyukov@...gle.com,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, tchibo@...gle.com,
        aryabinin@...tuozzo.com,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] kernel: kcov: a possible sleep-in-atomic-context bug in
 kcov_ioctl()



On 2018/6/21 11:43, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 11:20:59AM +0800, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
>> The kernel may sleep with holding a spinlock.
>> The function call path (from bottom to top) in Linux-4.16.7 is:
>>
>> [FUNC] vfree --> can sleep
>> kernel/kcov.c, 237: vfree in kcov_put
>> kernel/kcov.c, 396: kcov_put in kcov_ioctl_locked
>> kernel/kcov.c, 410: kcov_ioctl_locked in kcov_ioctl
>> kernel/kcov.c, 409: spin_lock in kcov_ioctl
>>
>> This bug is found by my static analysis tool (DSAC-2) and checked by my
>> code review.
>>
>> I do not know how to correctly fix this bug, so I just report them.
> Assuming it's a bug in the first place, that is.  Note that
> 	* we never modify task->kcov for task != current
> 	* task->kcov contributes to refcount
> 	* opened file contributes to refcount
> 	* that kcov_put() of yours happens from ->ioctl() and removes
> current->kcov reference; it *can't* be the last reference - the one
> held by struct file used to call ->ioctl() is also there.
>
> IOW, it's a false positive.

Okay, thanks for your reply and explanation.
I agree that my report is false.


Best wishes,
Jia-Ju Bai