linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: mempool: Fix a possible sleep-in-atomic-context bug in mempool

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 21 Jun 2018 07:54:18 +0200
From:   Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
To:     Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@...il.com>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: mempool: Fix a possible sleep-in-atomic-context bug
 in mempool_resize()

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 5:46 AM, Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@...il.com> wrote:
> On 2018/6/21 11:38, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 11:07:14AM +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] remove_element(GFP_KERNEL)
>>> mm/mempool.c, 250: remove_element in mempool_resize
>>> mm/mempool.c, 247: _raw_spin_lock_irqsave in mempool_resize
>>>
>>> To fix this bug, GFP_KERNEL is replaced with GFP_ATOMIC.
>>>
>>> This bug is found by my static analysis tool (DSAC-2) and checked by
>>> my code review.
>>
>> But ... we don't use the flags argument.
>>
>> static void *remove_element(mempool_t *pool, gfp_t flags)
>> {
>>          void *element = pool->elements[--pool->curr_nr];
>>
>>          BUG_ON(pool->curr_nr < 0);
>>          kasan_unpoison_element(pool, element, flags);
>>          check_element(pool, element);
>>          return element;
>> }
>>
>> ...
>>
>> static void kasan_unpoison_element(mempool_t *pool, void *element, gfp_t
>> flags)
>> {
>>          if (pool->alloc == mempool_alloc_slab || pool->alloc ==
>> mempool_kmalloc)
>>                  kasan_unpoison_slab(element);
>>          if (pool->alloc == mempool_alloc_pages)
>>                  kasan_alloc_pages(element, (unsigned
>> long)pool->pool_data);
>> }
>>
>> So the correct patch would just remove this argument to remove_element()
>> and
>> kasan_unpoison_element()?
>
>
> Yes, I also find this.
> I can submit a patch that removes the flag in:
> Definitions of kasan_unpoison_element() and remove_element()
> Three calls to remove_element() and one call to kasan_unpoison_element() in
> mempool.c.
>
> Do you think it is okay?

Hi Jia-Ju,

Removing an unused argument within a single file looks good to me.