linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] binder: Refactor binder

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: <CAH5fLghwpEE8GAjVTFOj0pBJ-HW=LvaWf_K3P9+optpjTsAfmw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2025 14:26:13 +0200
From: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
To: Tiffany Yang <ynaffit@...gle.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>, 
	Todd Kjos <tkjos@...roid.com>, Martijn Coenen <maco@...roid.com>, 
	Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, 
	Carlos Llamas <cmllamas@...gle.com>, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] binder: Refactor binder_node print synchronization

On Thu, May 8, 2025 at 2:18 PM Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 05, 2025 at 09:42:32PM +0000, Tiffany Yang wrote:
> > +     if (node->proc)
> > +             binder_inner_proc_unlock(node->proc);
> > +     else
> > +             spin_unlock(&binder_dead_nodes_lock);
>
> I don't buy this logic. Imagine the following scenario:
>
> 1. print_binder_proc is called, and we loop over proc->nodes.
> 2. We call binder_inner_proc_unlock(node->proc).
> 3. On another thread, binder_deferred_release() is called.
> 4. The node is removed from proc->nodes and node->proc is set to NULL.
> 5. Back in print_next_binder_node_ilocked(), we now call
>    spin_lock(&binder_dead_nodes_lock) and return.
> 6. In print_binder_proc(), we think that we hold the proc lock, but
>    actually we hold the dead nodes lock instead. BOOM.
>
> What happens with the current code is that print_binder_proc() takes the
> proc lock again after the node was removed from proc->nodes, and then it
> exits the loop because rb_next(n) returns NULL when called on a node not
> in any rb-tree.

Oh, there's a v3 of this. Let me resend it there.

Alice