linux-kernel - Re: [Linux kernel bug] general protection fault in disable

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: <CAEkJfYNJyyGhR9AAWc0V7o8i6pmS+OB=KSbh6XqVWAAGetS9hA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2024 13:08:41 +0800
From: Sam Sun <samsun1006219@...il.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, 
	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, swboyd@...omium.org, ricardo@...liere.net, 
	hkallweit1@...il.com, heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com, 
	mathias.nyman@...ux.intel.com, royluo@...gle.com, 
	syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, xrivendell7@...il.com
Subject: Re: [Linux kernel bug] general protection fault in disable_store

On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 2:11 AM Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 12:26:07AM +0800, Sam Sun wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 10:40 PM Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> wrote:
> > > I suspect the usb_hub_to_struct_hub() call is racing with the
> > > spinlock-protected region in hub_disconnect() (in hub.c).
> > >
> > > > If there is any other thing I could help, please let me know.
> > >
> > > Try the patch below.  It should eliminate that race, which hopefully
> > > will fix the problem.
>
> > I applied this patch and tried to execute several times, no more
> > kernel core dump in my environment. I think this bug is fixed by the
> > patch. But I do have one more question about it. Since it is a data
> > race bug, it has reproducibility issues originally. How can I confirm
> > if a racy bug is fixed by test? This kind of bug might still have a
> > race window but is harder to trigger. Just curious, not for this
> > patch. I think this patch eliminates the racy window.
>
> If you don't what what is racing, then testing cannot prove that a race
> is eliminated.  However, if you do know where a race occurs then it's
> easy to see how mutual exclusion can prevent the race from happening.
>
> In this case the bug might have had a different cause, something other
> than a race between usb_hub_to_struct_hub() and hub_disconnect().  If
> that's so then testing this patch would not be a definite proof that the
> bug is gone.  But if that race _is_ the cause of the bug then this patch
> will fix it -- you can see that just by reading the code with no need
> for testing.
>
> Besides, the patch is needed in any case because that race certainly
> _can_ occur.  And maybe not only on this pathway.
>

Thanks for explaining! I will check the related code next time.

> May I add your "Reported-and-tested-by:" to the patch?

Sure, thanks for your help!

Best Regards,
Yue