[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190219173654.GA4314@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 18:36:54 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ben Woodard <woodard@...hat.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] exec: increase BINPRM_BUF_SIZE to 256
On 02/19, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 01:37:57PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > looks unrelated...
> >
>
> Indeed...
>
> The underlying problem is in the error handling code of ace_setup(),
> which calls put_disk() followed by blk_cleanup_queue(). put_disk()
> calls disk_release(), which calls blk_put_queue(), which in turn
> results in a call to blk_mq_hw_sysfs_release().
>
> Added debug code, with your patch reverted, shows:
>
> ######### blk_mq_hw_sysfs_release hctx=cee4a800
> ...
> ######### blk_mq_run_hw_queue hctx=cee4a800
>
> blk_mq_hw_sysfs_release() calls kfree(htcx), so accessing it later is most
> definitely not a good idea.
Thanks!
> No idea why this only causes problems with your patch applied.
Well... blk_put_queue() may trigger kobject_uevent() which does call_usermodehelper.
So if one of the used-after-free datastructures was already re-allocated as
linux_binprm, then with my patch it can look "more corrupted"...
But honestly, I too have no idea.
Thanks Guenter.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists