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  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:   Fri, 3 Jan 2020 16:35:25 -0800
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <>
To:     Roman Gushchin <>
Cc:, Alexei Starovoitov <>,
        Daniel Borkmann <>,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf] bpf: cgroup: prevent out-of-order release of cgroup

On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 01:50:34PM -0800, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> Before commit 4bfc0bb2c60e ("bpf: decouple the lifetime of cgroup_bpf
> from cgroup itself") cgroup bpf structures were released with
> corresponding cgroup structures. It guaranteed the hierarchical order
> of destruction: children were always first. It preserved attached
> programs from being released before their propagated copies.
> But with cgroup auto-detachment there are no such guarantees anymore:
> cgroup bpf is released as soon as the cgroup is offline and there are
> no live associated sockets. It means that an attached program can be
> detached and released, while its propagated copy is still living
> in the cgroup subtree. This will obviously lead to an use-after-free
> bug.
> @@ -65,6 +65,9 @@ static void cgroup_bpf_release(struct work_struct *work)
>  	mutex_unlock(&cgroup_mutex);
> +	for (p = cgroup_parent(cgrp); p; p = cgroup_parent(p))
> +		cgroup_bpf_put(p);
> +

The fix makes sense, but is it really safe to walk cgroup hierarchy
without holding cgroup_mutex?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists