linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -tip 5/5] kprobes: Don't call BUG_ON if there is a kprobe in use on free list

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: <20180910122356.GA70908@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 10 Sep 2018 14:23:56 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "Naveen N . Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip 5/5] kprobes: Don't call BUG_ON if there is a kprobe
 in use on free list


* Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:

> Instead of calling BUG_ON, if we find a kprobe in use on free kprobe
> list, just remove it from the list and keep it on kprobe hash list
> as same as other in-use kprobes.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
> ---
>  kernel/kprobes.c |    8 +++++++-
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/kprobes.c b/kernel/kprobes.c
> index 63c342e5e6c3..e3420364b415 100644
> --- a/kernel/kprobes.c
> +++ b/kernel/kprobes.c
> @@ -546,8 +546,14 @@ static void do_free_cleaned_kprobes(void)
>  	struct optimized_kprobe *op, *tmp;
>  
>  	list_for_each_entry_safe(op, tmp, &freeing_list, list) {
> -		BUG_ON(!kprobe_unused(&op->kp));
>  		list_del_init(&op->list);
> +		if (!kprobe_unused(&op->kp)) {
> +			/*
> +			 * This must not happen, but if there is a kprobe
> +			 * still in use, keep it on kprobes hash list.
> +			 */
> +			continue;

If this is an 'impossible' code path then I think it would make sense to add a WARN_ON_ONCE() 
here.

Thanks,

	Ingo