Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755350AbaBUMFo (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Feb 2014 07:05:44 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:8349 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755215AbaBUMFn (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Feb 2014 07:05:43 -0500 Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 13:05:38 +0100 From: Mateusz Guzik To: Dave Jones , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rik van Riel Subject: Re: [PATCH] kref: oops on zero or negative refcount Message-ID: <20140221120538.GB8729@mguzik.brq.redhat.com> References: <1392918299-673-1-git-send-email-mguzik@redhat.com> <20140220181440.GA31506@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140220181440.GA31506@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 01:14:40PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote: > On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 06:44:59PM +0100, Mateusz Guzik wrote: > > In use after free situations, it is possible for one thread to write to > > memory that has just been reallocated to a new user. This could open up > > potential security issues. > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/kref.h b/include/linux/kref.h > > index 484604d..c3f8a0a 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/kref.h > > +++ b/include/linux/kref.h > > @@ -43,8 +43,10 @@ static inline void kref_get(struct kref *kref) > > /* If refcount was 0 before incrementing then we have a race > > * condition when this kref is freeing by some other thread right now. > > * In this case one should use kref_get_unless_zero() > > + * > > + * Terminate the current thread to stop potential security exploits. > > */ > > - WARN_ON_ONCE(atomic_inc_return(&kref->refcount) < 2); > > + BUG_ON(atomic_inc_return(&kref->refcount) < 2); > > This isn't "terminating the thread", this is "lock up the box". > Well, extent of damage caused by non-panicking BUG_ON (if any) depends on the state when kref_get was executed. However, since this condition is already a sign of big trouble (and a potential exploitation attempt), I think a WARN_ON_ONCE is not sufficient. That said, can you elaborate on your concers? You just don't like that comment, don't want that BUG_ON (want a panic instead) or maybe you don't like the change at all (or something else)? Thanks, -- Mateusz Guzik -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/