linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] modules: fix livelock in add_unformed

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

Date:   Tue, 28 May 2019 16:47:02 +0200
From:   Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>
To:     Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
Cc:     Barret Rhoden <brho@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        David Arcari <darcari@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] modules: fix livelock in add_unformed_module()

+++ Prarit Bhargava [28/05/19 10:30 -0400]:
>
>
>On 5/22/19 1:08 PM, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 5/13/19 10:37 AM, Barret Rhoden wrote:
>>> Hi -
>>>
>>
>> Hey Barret, my apologies for not getting back to you earlier.  I got caught up
>> in something that took me away from this issue.
>>
>>> On 5/13/19 7:23 AM, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>> A module is loaded once for each cpu.
>>>
>>> Does one CPU succeed in loading the module, and the others fail with EEXIST?
>>>
>>>> My follow-up patch changes from wait_event_interruptible() to
>>>> wait_event_interruptible_timeout() so the CPUs are no longer sleeping and can
>>>> make progress on other tasks, which changes the return values from
>>>> wait_event_interruptible().
>>>>
>>>> https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=155724085927589&w=2
>>>>
>>>> I believe this also takes your concern into account?
>>>
>>> That patch might work for me, but I think it papers over the bug where the check
>>> on old->state that you make before sleeping (was COMING || UNFORMED, now !LIVE)
>>> doesn't match the check to wake up in finished_loading().
>>>
>>> The reason the issue might not show up in practice is that your patch basically
>>> polls, so the condition checks in finished_loading() are only a quicker exit.
>>>
>>> If you squash my patch into yours, I think it will cover that case. Though if
>>> polling is the right answer here, it also raises the question of whether or not
>>> we even need finished_loading().
>>>
>>
>> The more I look at this I think you're right.  Let me do some additional testing
>> with your patch + my original patch.
>>
>
>I have done testing on arm64, s390x, ppc64le, ppc64, and x86 and have not seen
>any issues.
>
>Jessica, how would you like me to proceed?  Would you like an updated patch with
>Signed-off's from both Barret & myself?

Hi Prarit,

A freshly sent patch with the squashed changes and Signed-off's would
be great. Thank you both for testing and looking into this!

Jessica