linux-kernel - Re: WARNING in event_function

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]

Date:   Tue, 12 Feb 2019 22:46:42 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        syzbot <syzbot+352bd10e338d9a90e5e0@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        Abderrahmane Benbachir <abderrahmane.benbachir@...ymtl.ca>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: WARNING in event_function_local

On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 19:40:12 -0800
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:

 
> > > Steve, what could possibly be happening here? Just adding more
> > > tracepoints causes some kind of race where the task vs current test
> > > trips in event_function_local():
> > >
> > >                         if (WARN_ON_ONCE(task != current))
> > >                                 goto unlock;  
> >
> > That's perf code. How are you getting there? What's special about this
> > run? You have perf running?  
> 
> Yes, the reproducer is in an 8-way parallel tight loop, doing:
> 
>   fd = syscall(__NR_perf_event_open, 0x20000140, 0, 0, -1, 0);
>   syscall(__NR_ioctl, fd, 0x2402, 0x100000001);
> 
> I haven't decoded the structures that are passed in, but I'm at a loss
> for how changing how many trace entries there are could impact the
> race timing... O_o
> 
> > > Is this maybe just an unlucky condition with the event loop running in
> > > an IRQ? Should the WARN be expected, or is running under an IRQ
> > > unexpected?  
> 
> Is perf expected to fire during an IRQ? The task == current test seems
> suspicious if so...
> 

That's a question for Peter.

-- Steve