netdev - Re: net-next/unix: BUG: using smp_processor

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]

Date:	Mon, 24 Nov 2008 10:41:47 +0200 (EET)
From:	"Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
To:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: net-next/unix: BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible

On Mon, 24 Nov 2008, Eric Dumazet wrote:

> David Miller a écrit :
> > From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
> > Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 17:20:14 -0800 (PST)
> > 
> > > From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
> > > Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 04:32:30 +0100
> > >
> > > > [PATCH] net: make sock_prot_inuse_add() preempt safe
> >  ...
> > > Eric, you added this bug by starting to use this interface in
> > > situations where BH's were not disabled.
> > >
> > > Ever existing use adhered to that rule.
> > >
> > > If you therefore want to call this interface in new locations,
> > > you have to make sure those locations follow the rule too.
> > 
> > Here is what I commited to fix this bug.
> > 
> > net: Make sure BHs are disabled in sock_prot_inuse_add()
> > 
> > The rule of calling sock_prot_inuse_add() is that BHs must
> > be disabled.  Some new calls were added where this was not
> > true and this tiggers warnings as reported by Ilpo.
> > 
> > Fix this by adding explicit BH disabling around those call sites.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
> > ---
> >  net/netlink/af_netlink.c |    3 +++
> >  net/sctp/socket.c        |    4 ++++
> >  net/unix/af_unix.c       |    2 ++
> >  3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> I believe some bits are missing
> 
> Ilpo report was about unix_create1() being preemptable for example

Yes, basically these two sites I got (during boot, I didn't look much 
further if I could have gotten them from somewhere else too):

$ grep -A1 '[]] sock_prot_inuse_add[+]' dmesg.log  | grep "fffff" | grep -v sock_prot_inuse_add | sort | uniq
 [<ffffffff80514cdd>] unix_create1+0x161/0x176
 [<ffffffff805151de>] unix_sock_destructor+0xb6/0xbc


-- 
 i.