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: <3cf60868-fb3b-54cd-2177-09c4827e75e7@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 25 Jul 2022 17:22:35 +0200
From:   Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...nel.org>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Andreas Schwab <schwab@...e.de>
Cc:     linux-trace-devel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtla: fix double free

On 7/25/22 16:56, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 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
ah! right, it was missing this... ^^^
-- Daniel