[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: general protection fault in tomoyo_socket_sendmsg_permission
On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 07:02:22PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Greg, will you queue (which can
> close a report which is wasting syzbot's resource with 5300+ crashes) for 5.12 ? The change shown below will be
> too large to test before merge window for 5.12 opens.
> The patch for fixing "general protection fault in tomoyo_socket_sendmsg_permission" will kill kthread_get_run().
> Closing frequently crashing bug now is the better.
> On 2021/02/11 22:40, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > I guess that we need to serialize attach operation and reset/detach operations, for
> > it seems there is a race window that might result in "general protection fault in
> > tomoyo_socket_sendmsg_permission". Details follows...
> Here is untested diff that is expected to be complete.
> (1) Handle kthread_create() failure (which avoids "KASAN: null-ptr-deref Write in vhci_shutdown_connection")
> by grouping socket lookup, SOCK_STREAM check and kthread_get_run() into usbip_prepare_threads() function.
> (2) Serialize usbip_sockfd_store(), detach_store(), attach_store(), usbip_sockfd_store() and
> ud->eh_ops.shutdown()/ud->eh_ops.reset()/ud->eh_ops.unusable() operations using usbip_store_mutex mutex
> (which avoids "general protection fault in tomoyo_socket_sendmsg_permission").
> (3) Don't reset ud->tcp_socket to NULL in vhci_device_reset(). Since tx_thread/rx_thread depends on
> ud->tcp_socket != NULL whereas tcp_socket and tx_thread/rx_thread are assigned at the same time,
> it is never safe to reset only ud->tcp_socket from ud->eh_ops.reset(). And actually nobody is
> calling ud->eh_ops.reset() without ud->eh_ops.shutdown().
> (4) usbip_sockfd_store() must perform {sdev,udc}->ud.status != SDEV_ST_AVAILABLE && {sdev,udc}->ud.status = SDEV_ST_USED
> exclusively, or multiple tx_thread/rx_thread can be created when concurrently called. Although (2) will already
> serialize this action, (1) will make it possible to perform within one spinlock section.

Shouldn't this be 4 different patches?


greg k-h

 \ /
  Last update: 2021-02-13 11:13    [W:0.069 / U:3.408 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site