linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rtla: fix double free

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: <20220725105639.295a7d7d@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Mon, 25 Jul 2022 10:56:39 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Andreas Schwab <schwab@...e.de>
Cc:     Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...nel.org>,
        linux-trace-devel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtla: fix double free

On Mon, 25 Jul 2022 15:46:40 +0200
Andreas Schwab <schwab@...e.de> wrote:

> On Jul 25 2022, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
> 
> > Hi Andreas
> >
> > On 7/25/22 15:10, Andreas Schwab wrote:  
> >> Don't call trace_instance_destroy in trace_instance_init when it fails,
> >> this is done by the caller.  
> >
> > Regarding the Subject, are you seeing a double-free error, or it is just an
> > optimization?  
> 
> A double free nowadays is almost always an error, due to better malloc
> checking.
> 
> > AFAICS, trace_instance_destroy() checks the pointers before calling free().  
> 
> That doesn't help when the pointer is not cleared afterwards.  Do you
> prefer that?
> 
> > Why am I asking? because if it is a double-free bug, we need to add the "Fixes:"
> > tag,  
> 
> It's the first time I tried running rtla, so I don't know whether it is
> a regression, but from looking at the history it appears to have been
> introduced already in commit 0605bf009f18 ("rtla: Add osnoise tool")
> 

I think the real fix is to make trace_instance_destroy() be able to be
called more than once.

void trace_instance_destroy(struct trace_instance *trace)
{
        if (trace->inst) {
                disable_tracer(trace->inst);
                destroy_instance(trace->inst);
		trace->inst = NULL;
        }

        if (trace->seq) {
                free(trace->seq);
		trace->seq = NULL;
	}

        if (trace->tep) {
                tep_free(trace->tep);
		trace->tep = NULL;
	}
}

As trace_instance_init() is doing the above allocations, it should clean it
up on error. But I also agree, this will lead to double free without
changing trace_instance_destroy() to be the above and then calling it twice.

-- Steve