Re: [PATCH] ipc,sem block sem_lock on sma->lock during sma initialization

[Rik van Riel]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11/21/2014 03:42 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 15:29:27 -0500 Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 11/21/2014 03:09 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 14:52:26 -0500 Rik van Riel
>>> <riel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> When manipulating just one semaphore with semop, sem_lock
>>>> only takes that single semaphore's lock. This creates a
>>>> problem during initialization of the semaphore array, when
>>>> the data structures used by sem_lock have not been set up
>>>> yet. The sma->lock is already held by newary, and we just
>>>> have to make sure everything else waits on that lock during
>>>> initialization.
>>>> 
>>>> Luckily it is easy to make sem_lock wait on the sma->lock,
>>>> by pretending there is a complex operation in progress while
>>>> the sma is being initialized.
>>>> 
>>>> The newary function already zeroes sma->complex_count before 
>>>> unlocking the sma->lock.
>>> 
>>> What are the runtime effects of the bug?
>>> 
>> 
>> NULL pointer dereference in spin_lock from sem_lock, if it is
>> called before sma->sem_base has been pointed somewhere valid.
> 
> Help us out here.  People need to use this description to work out 
> which kernel versions need the patch and whether to backport the
> fix into their various kernels.  Other people will be starting at
> this changelog wondering "will this fix the bug my customer has
> reported".
> 
> Is there some bug report people can look at?
> 
> What userspace actions trigger this bug?

The reason the bug took almost two years to get noticed is that
it takes one task doing a semop on a semaphore in an array that
is still getting instantiated by newary (getsem) from another
task.

In other words, if you try to use a semaphore array before
getsem returns, you can oops the task that calls semop.

It should not cause any damage to long-living kernel data
structures.

- -- 
All rights reversed
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUb8TZAAoJEM553pKExN6DzJUH/RYSovikk+36KH0uFQN44txj
ZkEM6BsT7I6W9zBiK4OCPpwYCr5gy2xsXH7bLzCgzRV/YmjLFdw20DhDfSo14GO/
1ByYcsUcsZ+lPJZ+g4IKi57VW4T+NLa1T4CoJ84+1QVGKYlpc7mlwc8suTGBhKvQ
5Eq1o1KOE9ZtAG5Go8OYH7frwalkrYE0YJbGN9PW0pUvZ7FilEiMJIkznIetRS6K
WK05dK52DMKeXFxzuxVhSRcCZb2+bHZn3qFOmon6kHbMqgzRZCKMcdydtoIvcFq7
cA5eTt6V6je3XVhc4lsSfP9cHraLDZZIjkaJ856fBpgJ30ypsHcpVY6UKTbFSHo=
=u1Vg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/