linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kernel/watch_queue: Make pipe NULL while clearing watch

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 27 Jul 2022 21:50:52 +0530
From:   Siddh Raman Pant <code@...dh.me>
To:     "David Howells" <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:     "Greg KH" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Christophe JAILLET" <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
        "Eric Dumazet" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>,
        "linux-security-modules" <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel-mentees" 
        <linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "syzbot+c70d87ac1d001f29a058" 
        <syzbot+c70d87ac1d001f29a058@...kaller.appspotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/watch_queue: Make pipe NULL while clearing
 watch_queue

On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 20:16:40 +0530  David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
> Siddh Raman Pant <code@...dh.me> wrote:
> 
> > Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > > > - spin_unlock_bh(&wqueue->lock);
> > > >   rcu_read_unlock();
> > >
> > > Also you now have a spinlock held when calling rcu_read_unlock(), are
> > > you sure that's ok?
> 
> Worse, we have softirqs disabled still, which might cause problems for
> rcu_read_unlock()?
> 
> > We logically should not do write operations in a read critical section, so the
> > nulling of `wqueue->pipe->watch_queue` should happen after rcu_read_unlock().
> > Also, since we already have a spinlock, we can use it to ensure the nulling.
> > So I think it is okay.
> 
> Read/write locks are perhaps misnamed in this sense; they perhaps should be
> shared/exclusive.  But, yes, we *can* do certain write operations with the
> lock held - if we're careful.  Locks are required if we need to pairs of
> related memory accesses; if we're only making a single non-dependent write,
> then we don't necessarily need a write lock.
> 
> However, you're referring to RCU read lock.  That's a very special lock that
> has to do with maintenance of persistence of objects without taking any other
> lock.  The moment you drop that lock, anything you accessed under RCU protocol
> rules should be considered to have evaporated.
> 
> Think of it more as a way to have a deferred destructor/deallocator.
> 
> So I would do:
> 
> +
> +       /* Clearing the watch queue, so we should clean the associated pipe. */
> +       if (wqueue->pipe) {
> +               wqueue->pipe->watch_queue = NULL;
> +               wqueue->pipe = NULL;
> +       }
> +
>         spin_unlock_bh(&wqueue->lock);
>         rcu_read_unlock();
>  }
> 
> However, since you're now changing wqueue->pipe whilst a notification is being
> posted, you need a barrier in post_one_notification() to prevent the compiler
> from reloading the value:
> 
>         struct pipe_inode_info *pipe = READ_ONCE(wqueue->pipe);
> 
> David
> 

Thank you for explaining it!

I will send a v3. Should I add a Suggested-by tag mentioning you?

Thanks,
Siddh