linux-kernel - Re: NULL pointer dereference when access /proc/net

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]

Date:   Mon, 26 Apr 2021 01:04:46 +0800
From:   haosdent <haosdent@...il.com>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        zhengyu.duan@...pee.com, Haosong Huang <huangh@....com>
Subject: Re: NULL pointer dereference when access /proc/net

Hi, Alexander, thanks a lot for your quick reply.

> Not really - the crucial part is ->d_count == -128, i.e. it's already past
> __dentry_kill().

Thanks a lot for your information, we would check this.

> Which tree is that?
> If you have some patches applied on top of that...

We use Ubuntu Linux Kernel "4.15.0-42.45~16.04.1" from launchpad directly
without any modification,  the mapping Linux Kernel should be
"4.15.18" according
to https://people.canonical.com/~kernel/info/kernel-version-map.html

On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 12:50 AM Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 11:22:15PM +0800, haosdent wrote:
> > Hi, Alexander Viro and dear Linux Filesystems maintainers, recently we
> > encounter a NULL pointer dereference Oops in our production.
> >
> > We have attempted to analyze the core dump and compare it with source code
> > in the past few weeks, currently still could not understand why
> > `dentry->d_inode` become NULL while other fields look normal.
>
> Not really - the crucial part is ->d_count == -128, i.e. it's already past
> __dentry_kill().
>
> > [19521409.514784] RIP: 0010:__atime_needs_update+0x5/0x190
>
> Which tree is that?  __atime_needs_update() had been introduced in
> 4.8 and disappeared in 4.18; anything of that age straight on mainline
> would have a plenty of interesting problems.  If you have some patches
> applied on top of that...  Depends on what those are, obviously.



-- 
Best Regards,
Haosdent Huang