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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 15:23:00 -0300 From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca> To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org> Cc: Divya Indi <divya.indi@...cle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, Kaike Wan <kaike.wan@...el.com>, Gerd Rausch <gerd.rausch@...cle.com>, HÃ¥kon Bugge <haakon.bugge@...cle.com>, Srinivas Eeda <srinivas.eeda@...cle.com>, Rama Nichanamatlu <rama.nichanamatlu@...cle.com>, Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] IB/sa: Resolving use-after-free in ib_nl_send_msg On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 08:17:39AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > My thoughts that everything here hints me that state machine and > locking are implemented wrongly. In ideal world, the expectation > is that REQ message will have a state in it (PREPARED, SENT, ACK > e.t.c.) and list manipulations are done accordingly with proper > locks, while rdma_nl_multicast() is done outside of the locks. It can't be done outside the lock without creating races - once rdma_nl_multicast happens it is possible for the other leg of the operation to begin processing. The list must be updated before this happens. What is missing here is refcounting - the lifetime model of this data is too implicit, but it is not worth adding I think Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists