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: <20210310132319.239999799@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Wed, 10 Mar 2021 14:25:15 +0100
From:   gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Schoebel-Theuer <tst@...d1.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Subject: [PATCH 4.4 2/7] futex: fix spin_lock() / spin_unlock_irq() imbalance

From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

From: Thomas Schoebel-Theuer <tst@...d1.de>

This patch and problem analysis is specific for 4.4 LTS, due to incomplete
backporting of other fixes. Later LTS series have different backports.

The following is obviously incorrect:

static int wake_futex_pi(u32 __user *uaddr, u32 uval, struct futex_q *this,
             struct futex_hash_bucket *hb)
{
[...]
	raw_spin_lock(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
[...]
	raw_spin_unlock_irq(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
[...]
}

The 4.4-specific fix should probably go in the direction of
b4abf91047c,
making everything irq-safe.

Probably, backporting of b4abf91047c
to 4.4 LTS could thus be another good idea.

However, this might involve some more 4.4-specific work and
require thorough testing:

> git log --oneline v4.4..b4abf91047c -- kernel/futex.c kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | wc -l
10

So this patch is just an obvious quickfix for now.

Hint: the lock order is documented in 4.9.y and later. A similar
documenting is missing in 4.4.y. Please somebody either backport also,
or write a new description, if there would be some differences I cannot
easily see at the moment. Without reliable docs,
inspection of the locking correctness may become a pain.
 
Signed-off-by: Thomas Schoebel-Theuer <tst@...d1.de>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Fixes: 394fc4981426 ("futex: Rework inconsistent rt_mutex/futex_q state")
Fixes: 6510e4a2d04f ("futex,rt_mutex: Provide futex specific rt_mutex API")
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
 kernel/futex.c |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/kernel/futex.c
+++ b/kernel/futex.c
@@ -1408,7 +1408,7 @@ static int wake_futex_pi(u32 __user *uad
 	if (pi_state->owner != current)
 		return -EINVAL;
 
-	raw_spin_lock(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
+	raw_spin_lock_irq(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
 	new_owner = rt_mutex_next_owner(&pi_state->pi_mutex);
 
 	/*


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ