linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] drivers: core: Remove glue dirs from sysfs earlier

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: <CA+55aFwwzF-PeS02x-9FFSQdPpJgmaEtC8KNfG_U_DTbSXz+-g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 30 Jun 2018 19:18:58 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] drivers: core: Remove glue dirs from sysfs earlier

On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 7:07 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> Those locks won't protect kobj races in _general_ (ie there is no
> locking between two totally unrelated buses), but they *should*
> serialize the case of a device being added within one class. No?

Side note: there had *better* be some locking whenever there is a way
to find an object, because otherwise you have a fundamental lifetime
problem: one thread finding the object at the same time another thread
frees it for the last time. Even the "unless_zero()" won't fix it,
because the final free will release the underlying object itself, so
the "zero" state is ephemeral.

That locking might be just RCU during lookup, and rcu-delaying the
release, of course.  I think that's all the sysfs code needs, for
example, since that's what lookup uses.

And for any other embedded kobj cases, where you can reach the object
using some random subsystem pointers, there had better be other
locking in place for that pointer lookup vs the last removal.

kobject itself doesn't provide that locking, it only provides the
reference counting. But that's partly why it really has to disallow
any kobject_get() of a zero object, because it means that the
tear-down has been started, but the tear-down itself may not have had
time to get the lock yet (ie kobject_release() may be just about to
call the t->release() function).

But maybe I'm missing something subtle.

               Linus