netdev - Re: BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible code in radix_tree_node

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: <20200605161121.GC1373@sol.localdomain>
Date:   Fri, 5 Jun 2020 09:11:21 -0700
From:   Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     syzbot <syzbot+3eec59e770685e3dc879@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible code in
 radix_tree_node_alloc

On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 04:29:22AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 08:55:55PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > Possibly a bug in lib/radix-tree.c?  this_cpu_ptr() in radix_tree_node_alloc()
> > can be reached without a prior preempt_disable().  Or is the caller of
> > idr_alloc() doing something wrong?
> 
> Yes, the idr_alloc() call is plainly wrong:
> 
>         mutex_lock(&qrtr_port_lock);
>         if (!*port) {
>                 rc = idr_alloc(&qrtr_ports, ipc,
>                                QRTR_MIN_EPH_SOCKET, QRTR_MAX_EPH_SOCKET + 1,
>                                GFP_ATOMIC);
> 
> If we can take a mutex lock, there's no excuse to be using GFP_ATOMIC.
> That (and the call slightly lower in the function) should be GFP_KERNEL
> as the minimal fix (below).  I'll send a followup patch which converts
> this IDR to the XArray instead.

I did see that the GFP_ATOMIC was unnecessary, but it wasn't obvious to me that
it was actually *wrong*.

Shouldn't this requirement be documented for the @gfp argument to idr_alloc()?

- Eric