[lkml]   [2021]   [Jun]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [GIT PULL] sigqueue cache fix

    * Linus Torvalds <> wrote:

    > On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 10:14 PM Ingo Molnar <> wrote:
    > >
    > > The most fundamental race we can have is this:
    > No. It's this (all on the same CPU):
    > sigqueue_cache_or_free():
    > if (!READ_ONCE(current->sigqueue_cache))
    > <-- Interrupt happens here
    > WRITE_ONCE(current->sigqueue_cache, q);

    Indeed - I was under the impression that this cannot happen, because
    interrupts are disabled - but I was wrong:

    __sigqueue_free() is the only user of sigqueue_cache_or_free().

    Callers of __sigqueue_free():

    - flush_sigqueue():
    # flush_signals() is holding the siglock & disables IRQs
    # __exit_signal() isn't holding the siglock but has IRQs disabled
    # selinux_bprm_committed_creds() is holding the siglock & disables IRQs

    - __flush_itimer_signals()
    # Its single caller is holding the siglock & disables IRQs

    - collect_signal()
    # Its single caller is holding the siglock & disables IRQs

    - dequeue_synchronous_signal()
    # Its single caller is holding the siglock & disables IRQs

    - flush_sigqueue_mask():
    # All callers are holding the siglock & disable IRQs

    - sigqueue_free()

    Boom, the last one on the list, sigqueue_free(), does __sigqueue_free()
    while not holding the siglock and not disabling interrupts. :-/

    It does it in various syscall paths in the POSIX timers code through
    release_posix_timer(), with interrupts clearly enabled.

    > and then the interrupt sends a SIGCONT, which ends up flushing
    > previous process control signals, which ends up freeing them, which
    > ends up in sigqueue_cache_or_free() again, at which point you have
    > if (!READ_ONCE(current->sigqueue_cache))
    > WRITE_ONCE(current->sigqueue_cache, q);
    > again.
    > And both the original and the interrupting one sees a NULL
    > current->sigqueue_cache, so both of them will do that WRITE_ONCE(),
    > and when the interrupt returns, the original case will overwrite the
    > value that the interrupt free'd.
    > Boom - memory leak.
    > It does seem to be very small race window, and it's "only" a memory
    > leak, but it's a very simple example of how this cache was broken even
    > on UP.

    Yeah - a clear Producer <-> Producer IRQ preemptability race that can leak
    freed sigqueue structures.

    Thanks for catching this ...

    But even if release_posix_timer() is changed to call sigqueue_free() with
    IRQs disabled, or sigqueue_free() disables interrupts itself, I think we
    need to be mindful of the Consumer <-> Producer SMP races, which only
    appear to be safe due to an accidental barrier by free_uid().

    Plus a lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled() would have helped a lot in catching
    this sooner.



     \ /
      Last update: 2021-06-28 20:47    [W:3.079 / U:0.000 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site