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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <874j1iismp.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2025 21:35:26 +0100
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
To: André Almeida <andrealmeid@...lia.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,  Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
  Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,  Darren Hart
 <dvhart@...radead.org>,  Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,  Arnd
 Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,  linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
  kernel-dev@...lia.com,  Vinicius Peixoto <vpeixoto@...amp.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] futex: Drop ROBUST_LIST_LIMIT

* André Almeida:

> Hi Florian,
>
> Em 28/01/2025 04:50, Florian Weimer escreveu:
>> * André Almeida:
>> 
>>> As requested by Peter at [1], this patchset drops the
>>> ROBUST_LIST_LIMIT. This is achieve by simply rewriting the processed
>>> list element ->next to point to the head->list address, destroying the
>>> linked list to avoid any circular list.
>> Doesn't this turn a robust mutex overwrite or a TCB overwrite into a
>> write-anything-anywhere primitive?  Furthermore, I'm not entirely sure
>> if this is entirely backwards-compatible.
>> 
>
> The robust list is meant to be a private resource, per-process, and
> this patch only rewrites it after the process exits, so I believe that
> any changes done in this memory should be safe given that the process
> will soon disappear anyway, right?

At least in the glibc implementation, we let the kernel handle robust
mutex notification on thread exit, and that's observable.

Beyond that, process-shared robust mutexes exist, too, and those updates
will be observable, too.

> Do you think you can point out a scenario that wouldn't be
> backwards-compatible? I would like to try to test it.

I think it should be okay for the glibc implementation.  The robust list
is libc-owned (at least in glibc implementation), so it should not
matter, but the are other libs out there.

>> Could you use the tortoise/hare approach instead?

> I believe that you want the approach to be "slow and steady" but I'm
> not sure what you have in mind, if you could you please elaborate :)

I meant cycle detection using Floyd's algorithm.

Thanks,
Florian


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ