[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87r0llco94.ffs@tglx>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 18:11:35 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc: Nirmoy Das <nirmoy.das@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] debugobjects: stop accessing objects
after releasing spinlock
On Thu, Oct 19 2023 at 12:31, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> On 13.10.2023 15:15, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> It cannot be freed. If that happens then the calling code will have an
>> UAF problem on the tracked item too.
>
> Yes, and I have assumed that debugobjects are created also for detecting
> UAFs.
Kinda.
> They should be able to handle/detect 'issues due to incorrectly
> serialized concurrent accesses' scenarios as well, at least some of
> them. And even if it cannot recover it should at least provide reliable
> reporting.
Fair enough.
> Now we can have scenario:
> 1. Thread tries to deactivate destroyed object, debugobjects detects it,
> spin lock is released, thread is preempted.
> 2. Other thread frees debugobject, then allocates new one on the same
> memory location, ie 'obj' variable from 1st thread point to it - it is
> possible because there is no locking.
> 3. Then preemption occurs, and 1st thread reports error for wrong object.
>
> This seems the most drastic for me, but also with lowest chances to
> happen due to delayed freeing, but there are also other more probable
> scenarios when we print the same object but in state different from the
> one when debugobject detected issue, due to modification by concurrent
> thread.
Now I understand what you mean. This information should be in the
changelog, no?
Let me stare at the patch once more.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists