linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] lockdep: Speed up lockdep_unregister

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <e4974c9e-057f-4f3f-ae2e-67a5da51df01@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 10:57:15 -0400
From: Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>
To: Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Peter Zijlstra
 <peterz@...radead.org>, Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>,
 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, aeh@...a.com,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, jhs@...atatu.com,
 kernel-team@...a.com, Erik Lundgren <elundgren@...a.com>,
 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lockdep: Speed up lockdep_unregister_key() with expedited
 RCU synchronization

On 3/25/25 10:52 AM, Waiman Long wrote:
> I agree that the commit that I mentioned is not relevant to the 
> current case. You are right that is_dynamic_key() is the only function 
> that is problematic, the other two are protected by the lockdep_lock. 
> So they are safe. Anyway, I believe that the actual race happens in 
> the iteration of the hashed list in is_dynamic_key(). The key that you 
> save in the lockdep_key_hazptr in your proposed patch should never be 
> the key (dead_key) that is passed to lockdep_unregister_key(). In 
> is_dynamic_key():
>
>     hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(k, hash_head, hash_entry) {
>                 if (k == key) {
>                         found = true;
>                         break;
>                 }
>         }
>
> key != k (dead_key), but before accessing its content to get to 
> hash_entry, an interrupt/NMI can happen. In the mean time, the 
> structure holding the key is freed and its content can be overwritten 
> with some garbage. When interrupt/NMI returns, hash_entry can point to 
> anything leading to crash or an infinite loop.  Perhaps we can use 
> some kind of synchronization mechanism between is_dynamic_key() and 
> lockdep_unregister_key() to prevent this kind of racing. For example, 
> we can have an atomic counter associated with each head of the hashed 
> table. is_dynamic_key() can increment the counter if it is not zero to 
> proceed and lockdep_unregister_key() have to make sure it can safely 
> decrement the counter to 0 before going ahead. Just a thought!
>
Well, that is essentially an arch_rwlock_t for each list head.

Cheers,
Longman