netdev - Re: Several races in "usbnet" module (kernel 4.1.x)

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1437642952.4377.10.camel@suse.com>
Date:	Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:15:52 +0200
From:	Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>
To:	Eugene Shatokhin <eugene.shatokhin@...alab.ru>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Several races in "usbnet" module (kernel 4.1.x)

On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 21:33 +0300, Eugene Shatokhin wrote:
> The following part is not necessary, I think. usbnet_bh() does not
> touch 
> EVENT_NO_RUNTIME_PM bit explicitly and these bit operations are
> atomic 
> w.r.t. each other.
> 
> > +     mpn |= !test_and_clear_bit(EVENT_NO_RUNTIME_PM, &dev->flags);
> > +     /* in case the bh reset a flag */

Yes, they are atomic w.r.t. each other. And that limitation worries me.

I am considering architectures which do atomic operations with
spinlocks. And this code mixes another operation into it. Can
this happen?

CPU A				CPU B

take lock
read old value
				set value to 0
clear bit
write back changed value
release lock

	Regards
		Oliver


--
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