netdev - Re: tip -ENOBOOT - bisected to locking/refcounts, x86/asm: Implement fast refcount overflow protection

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]

Message-ID: <1504154298.23109.23.camel@gmx.de>
Date:   Thu, 31 Aug 2017 06:38:18 +0200
From:   Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
        "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: tip -ENOBOOT - bisected to locking/refcounts, x86/asm:
 Implement fast refcount overflow protection

On Wed, 2017-08-30 at 21:10 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 9:01 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2017-08-30 at 19:27 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> >>
> >>> Interesting! Can you try with 633547973ffc3 ("net: convert
> >>> sk_buff.users from atomic_t to refcount_t") reverted? I'll see if
> >>> running haveged will help me trigger this on my system...
> >>
> >> With that (plus 230cd1279d001 fix to it) reverted, vbox boots.
> >
> > Wonderful! Thank you so much for helping track this down.
> >
> > So, it seems that sk_buff.users will need some more special attention
> > before we can convert it to refcount.
> >
> > x86-refcount will saturate with refcount_dec_and_test() if the result
> > is negative. But that would mean at least starting at 0. FULL should
> > have WARNed in this case, so I remain slightly confused why it was
> > missed by FULL.
> 
> Actually, if this is a race condition it's possible that FULL is slow
> enough to miss it...
> 
> I bet something briefly takes the refcount negative, and with
> unchecked atomics, it come back up positive again during the race.
> FULL may miss the race, and x86-refcount will catch it and saturate...

Hm, I'll go have a stare.. not that that's likely to turn anything up,
memory ordering stares usually inducing a zombie like state.

	-Mike