linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] debugobject: fix concurrency issues with is_static

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: <87sfdw8yru.ffs@tglx>
Date:   Wed, 22 Mar 2023 18:46:29 +0100
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Schspa Shi <schspa@...il.com>
Cc:     longman@...hat.com, swboyd@...omium.org, linux@...ck-us.net,
        wuchi.zero@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        syzbot+5093ba19745994288b53@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] debugobject: fix concurrency issues with
 is_static_object

On Wed, Mar 22 2023 at 23:40, Schspa Shi wrote:
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> writes:
>>> +	} else {
>>> +		/*
>>> +		 * The debug object is inited, and we should check this again
>>> +		 */
>>> +		if (obj->is_static) {
>>> +			raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&db->lock, flags);
>>> +			return;
>>
>> This is broken. If the object is static and already hashed and in active
>> state then this returns and fails to detect the re-initialization of an
>> active object.
>>
>
> Yes, it's right, this can be fixed by pass a skip_ifstatic parameters
> from debug_object_activate. then re-initialization of an active object
> can be detected.

>>> -static __initdata struct self_test obj = { .static_init = 0 };
>>> +static struct self_test obj __initdata = { .static_init = 0 };
>>> +static struct self_test sobj __initdata = { .static_init = 1 };
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> -	obj.static_init = 1;
>>
>> Plus the s/obj/sobj/ which should be equivalent, unless I'm missing
>> something here.
>>
>
> We have saved the is_static state when it is used at the first time, so
> the is_static_object function won't be called in this environment.

There is zero requirement for saving that state.

>>  lib/debugobjects.c |  127 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------
>>  1 file changed, 67 insertions(+), 60 deletions(-)
>>
>> --- a/lib/debugobjects.c
>> +++ b/lib/debugobjects.c
>> @@ -216,10 +216,6 @@ static struct debug_obj *__alloc_object(
>>  	return obj;
>>  }
>>  
>> -/*
>> - * Allocate a new object. If the pool is empty, switch off the debugger.
>> - * Must be called with interrupts disabled.
>> - */
>>  static struct debug_obj *
>>  alloc_object(void *addr, struct debug_bucket *b, const struct debug_obj_descr *descr)
>>  {
>> @@ -273,7 +269,7 @@ alloc_object(void *addr, struct debug_bu
>>  	if (obj) {
>>  		obj->object = addr;
>>  		obj->descr  = descr;
>> -		obj->state  = ODEBUG_STATE_NONE;
>> +		obj->state  = ODEBUG_STATE_INIT;
>
> This actually droped the ODEBUG_STATE_NONE state. If we active a
> uninitialized object, there will be no error report.

Indeed.

> This should be
>
> if (descr->is_static_object && descr->is_static_object(addr))
> 	obj->state  = ODEBUG_STATE_INIT;
> else
> 	obj->state  = ODEBUG_STATE_NONE;

Kinda.

> But this can't resolve the initial state requirement from the
> is_static_object() call.

Which requirement? The is_static_object() call takes the address of the
actual object and has nothing to do with the tracking object at all.

> I think we can report an error when calling debug_object_free() from a
> static object. If don't do so, there is no way to determine it's a
> static object.

The memory allocator will tell you loudly when you try to free a static
object. So no point in having another check.

> When its initialization state changes, the is_static_object() call
> will return the wrong value.

That call is only relevant on the first invocation when there is no
tracking object yet. So what's the problem you are trying to solve?

> Please see the fellowing test case:
>
> 	obj.static_init = 1;

This is pointless, really. Once the object is tracked it does not matter
at all whether it was statically or dynamically allocated.

>
> I test this patch, with my above change, and it seems to work well, but
> we still need to add extra flags to store its static state. And
> debug_object_free() should report an error for the static object.

No, we don't.

> I think we should introduce lookup_object_or_alloc and is_static at the
> same time.

What for?

Thanks,

        tglx