[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 17:44:07 +0000
From: "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, AKASHI Takahiro
<takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>, "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com"
<kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>, "mingo@...hat.com"
<mingo@...hat.com>, "Anvin, H Peter" <h.peter.anvin@...el.com>,
"will.deacon@....com" <will.deacon@....com>, "dwindsor@...il.com"
<dwindsor@...il.com>, "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org"
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, "ishkamiel@...il.com" <ishkamiel@...il.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH 08/19] kernel, mm: convert from
atomic_t to refcount_t
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Reshetova, Elena
> <elena.reshetova@...el.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 02:11:15PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 02:55:21PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> >> > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> > > > I can see if it'll cherry-pick cleanly, I assume it will. :)
> >> > >
> >> > > It cherry-picked cleanly. However, I made several changes:
> >> > >
> >> > > - I adjusted Peter's author email (it had extra []s around).
> >> > > - I fixed all of the commit subjects (Peter's were missing).
> >> > > - I added back "kref: Add KREF_INIT()" since it seems to have been
> >> > > lost and mixed into other patches that would break bisection
> >> > >
> >> > > It's here now, please work from this version:
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >>
> http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/kees/linux.git/log/?h=kspp/hardened-
> >> atomic
> >> >
> >> > I gave it a spin on arm64.
> >> > It can compile with a change to smp.c that I mentioned before,
> >> > but the boot failed. I've not dug into it.
> >> >
> >> > ===8<===
> >> > [ 3.578618] refcount_t: increment on 0; use-after-free.
> >> > [ 3.579165] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> >> > [ 3.579254] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1 at
> /home/akashi/arm/armv8/linaro/linux-
> >> aarch64/include/linux/refcount.h:109 unx_create+0x8c/0xc0
> >>
> >> That's dodgy code, someone needs to look at that.
> >>
> >> It has an inc in a function called 'create' which seems to suggest its
> >> objection creation and we should be using refcount_set() instead.
> >>
> >> Then again, it looks like you can call this 'create' method multiple
> >> times, each time returning the same static object, so refcount_set()
> >> would not be correct.
> >>
> >> Using a refcount on a static object is weird of course, so this is bound
> >> to give trouble.
> >
> > I have reverted this one back to atomic and added it to the tracking doc.
> > The problem for this one is that it is not always used as static and in other cases
> > it is even initialized correctly to 1, but this static case seems to be special one
> giving troubles...
> >
> > Last week I also fixed all the warnings/errors that test infra gave. The question
> that comes is what next? How do we really test this further apart from just booting
> this up?
>
> Which tree has all the fixes? I can refresh my kernel.org tree and let
> 0day grind on it, then we can start getting acks and I can push it
> into -next via my KSPP tree.
Here is the tree: https://github.com/ereshetova/linux-stable/commits/refcount_t
I would really like to get more runtime testing done for it also, not just asks :)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
