lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Dec]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: use-after-free in sctp_do_sm
On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 11:40:02AM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 9:51 PM, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > (adding lkml as this is likely better discussed there)
> >
> > On Thu, 2015-12-03 at 15:42 -0500, Jason Baron wrote:
> >> On 12/03/2015 03:24 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 2015-12-03 at 15:10 -0500, Jason Baron wrote:
> >> > > On 12/03/2015 03:03 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> >> > > > On Thu, 2015-12-03 at 14:32 -0500, Jason Baron wrote:
> >> > > > > On 12/03/2015 01:52 PM, Aaron Conole wrote:
> >> > > > > > I think that as a minimum, the following patch should be evaluted,
> >> > > > > > but am unsure to whom I should submit it (after I test):
> >> > > > []
> >> > > > > Agreed - the intention here is certainly to have no side effects. It
> >> > > > > looks like 'no_printk()' is used in quite a few other places that would
> >> > > > > benefit from this change. So we probably want a generic
> >> > > > > 'really_no_printk()' macro.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/6/17/231
> >> > >
> >> > > I don't see this in the tree.
> >> >
> >> > It never got applied.
> >> >
> >> > > Also maybe we should just convert
> >> > > no_printk() to do what your 'eliminated_printk()'.
> >> >
> >> > Some of them at least.
> >> >
> >> > > So we can convert all users with this change?
> >> >
> >> > I don't think so, I think there are some
> >> > function evaluation/side effects that are
> >> > required. I believe some do hardware I/O.
> >> >
> >> > It'd be good to at least isolate them.
> >> >
> >> > I'm not sure how to find them via some
> >> > automated tool/mechanism though.
> >> >
> >> > I asked Julia Lawall about it once in this
> >> > thread: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/12/3/696
> >> >
> >>
> >> Seems rather fragile to have side effects that we rely
> >> upon hidden in a printk().
> >
> > Yup.
> >
> >> Just convert them and see what breaks :)
> >
> > I appreciate your optimism. It's very 1995.
> > Try it and see what happens.
>
>
> Whatever is the resolution for pr_debug, we still need to fix this
> particular use-after-free. It affects stability of debug builds, gives
> invalid debug output, prevents us from finding more bugs in SCTP. And
> maybe somebody uses CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEBUG in production.

Agreed. I'm already working on a fix for this particular use-after-free.

Another interesting thing about this is that sctp_do_sm() is called for
nearly every movement that happens on a sctp socket. Said that, that
always-running IDR search hidden on that debug statement do have some
nasty performance impact, specially because it's serialized on a
spinlock. This wouldn't be happening if it was fully ellided and would
be ok if that pr_debug() was really being printed, but not as it is.
Kudos to this report that I could notice this. I'm trying to fix this on
SCTP-side as well.

Marcelo



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-12-04 14:21    [W:0.061 / U:9.096 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site