[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v6 00/16] locking/lockdep: Add support for dynamic keys
On Mon, 2019-01-14 at 13:52 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 09:01:41AM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > The list_del_rcu() call must only happen once.
> Yes; obviously. But if we need to check all @pf's, that means the entry
> is still reachable after a single reset_lock()/free_key_range(), which
> is a bug.
> > I ran into complaints reporting that
> > the list_del_rcu() call triggered list corruption. This change made these complaints
> > disappear.
> I'm saying this solution buggy, because that means the entry is still
> reachable after we do call_rcu() (which is a straight up UAF).
> Also put it differently, what guarantees checking those two @pf's is
> sufficient. Suppose your earlier @pf already did the RCU callback and
> freed stuff while the second is in progress. Then you're poking into
> dead space.

zap_class() only examines elements of the list_entries[] array for which the
corresponding bit in list_entries_in_use has been set. The RCU callback clears
the bits in the list_entries_in_use that correspond to elements that have been
freed. The graph lock serializes zap_class() calls and the code inside the
RCU callback. So it's not clear to me why you are claiming that zap_class()
would trigger a use-after-free?


 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-14 17:52    [W:0.095 / U:6.960 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site