linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/7 v2] tracefs: Revert ccbd54ff54e8 ("tracefs: Restrict tracefs when the kernel is locked down")

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: <20191012203922.3f29b258@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Sat, 12 Oct 2019 20:39:22 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Matthew Garrett <matthewgarrett@...gle.com>,
        James Morris James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7 v2] tracefs: Revert ccbd54ff54e8 ("tracefs: Restrict
 tracefs when the kernel is locked down")

On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 20:35:02 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 15:56:15 -0700
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 5:59 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:  
> > >
> > >
> > > I bisected this down to the addition of the proxy_ops into tracefs for
> > > lockdown. It appears that the allocation of the proxy_ops and then freeing
> > > it in the destroy_inode callback, is causing havoc with the memory system.
> > > Reading the documentation about destroy_inode and talking with Linus about
> > > this, this is buggy and wrong.    
> > 
> > Can you still add the explanation about the inode memory leak to this message?
> > 
> > Right now it just says "it's buggy and wrong". True. But doesn't
> > explain _why_ it is buggy and wrong.
> >   
> 
> Sure. The patches just finished my testing (along with other fixes that
> I need to send you). I have to make a few other updates in the change
> log though, so I'll be rebasing them (but not touching the code), to
> clean up the change logs.
> 

I updated this change log to state:

"I bisected this down to the addition of the proxy_ops into tracefs for
lockdown. It appears that the allocation of the proxy_ops and then freeing
it in the destroy_inode callback, is causing havoc with the memory system.
Reading the documentation about destroy_inode and talking with Linus about
this, this is buggy and wrong. When defining the destroy_inode() method, it 
is expected that the destroy_inode() will also free the inode, and not just 
the extra allocations done in the creation of the inode. The faulty commit 
causes a memory leak of the inode data structure when they are deleted."

-- Steve