linux-kernel - [PATCH 5.10 047/112] sysctl: Fix data races in proc_dointvec

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:   Tue, 19 Jul 2022 13:53:40 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 5.10 047/112] sysctl: Fix data races in proc_dointvec_jiffies().

From: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>

[ Upstream commit e877820877663fbae8cb9582ea597a7230b94df3 ]

A sysctl variable is accessed concurrently, and there is always a chance
of data-race.  So, all readers and writers need some basic protection to
avoid load/store-tearing.

This patch changes proc_dointvec_jiffies() to use READ_ONCE() and
WRITE_ONCE() internally to fix data-races on the sysctl side.  For now,
proc_dointvec_jiffies() itself is tolerant to a data-race, but we still
need to add annotations on the other subsystem's side.

Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
Signed-off-by: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
---
 kernel/sysctl.c | 7 +++++--
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sysctl.c b/kernel/sysctl.c
index e7409788db64..83241a56539b 100644
--- a/kernel/sysctl.c
+++ b/kernel/sysctl.c
@@ -1276,9 +1276,12 @@ static int do_proc_dointvec_jiffies_conv(bool *negp, unsigned long *lvalp,
 	if (write) {
 		if (*lvalp > INT_MAX / HZ)
 			return 1;
-		*valp = *negp ? -(*lvalp*HZ) : (*lvalp*HZ);
+		if (*negp)
+			WRITE_ONCE(*valp, -*lvalp * HZ);
+		else
+			WRITE_ONCE(*valp, *lvalp * HZ);
 	} else {
-		int val = *valp;
+		int val = READ_ONCE(*valp);
 		unsigned long lval;
 		if (val < 0) {
 			*negp = true;
-- 
2.35.1