netdev - Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 33502] New: Caught 64-bit read from uninitialized memory in __alloc

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]

Date:	Tue, 10 May 2011 14:24:40 +0200
From:	Vegard Nossum <vegardno@....uio.no>
To:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, <casteyde.christian@...e.fr>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <bugzilla-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org>,
	<bugme-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 33502] New: Caught 64-bit read from
 uninitialized memory in __alloc_skb

 On Tue, 10 May 2011 13:19:35 +0300, Pekka Enberg 
 <penberg@...helsinki.fi> wrote:
> On 5/10/11 1:17 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> Le mardi 10 mai 2011 à 13:03 +0300, Pekka Enberg a écrit :
>>
>>> Can't we fix the issue by putting kmemcheck_mark_initialized() to
>>> set_freepointer()?
>>
>> This would solve kmemcheck problem, not DEBUG_PAGEALLOC
>
> Oh, right. Christoph? We need to support DEBUG_PAGEALLOC with SLUB.

 Hi,

 Disclaimer: I don't know how the algorithm is supposed to work, so 
 please excuse me if this makes no sense at all. But here goes:

 Presumably the problem is that the page can get freed, and that with 
 DEBUG_PAGEALLOC, the page will therefore not be present and subsequently 
 trigger a page fault when doing this cmpxchg() on the possibly freed 
 object.

 Regardless of DEBUG_PAGEALLOC or kmemcheck, what happens if the page 
 gets freed, then allocated again for a completely different purpose in 
 another part of the kernel, and new user of the page by chance writes 
 the same "tid" number that the cmpxchg() is expecting?

 I guess I'm asking: Are we relying on the fact that this has a 
 negligible probability of happening? Or did I just misunderstand what 
 the algorithm does, and it is in fact provable (in theory) that nothing 
 wrong can happen?

 Thanks,

 Vegard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html