On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 01:03:47PM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
...
> I hope not! But, then it would be probably another logical trick:
> ipc_rcu_getref/putref() seems to prevent kfreeing of a structure, so
> if it's used in do_msgsnd() there should be a risk something can do
> this kfree at this moment, and it seems freeque() is the only one,
> which both: can do this and cares for this refcount. Then, e.g., if
> any of them does ipc_rcu_getref() a bit later and sees old (cached)
> value - kfree can be skipped forever. [...]
After rethinking, this scenario seems to be wrong or very unprobable
(I'm not sure of all ways "if (--container...)" could be compiled),
so there should be no such risk - double kfree/vfree is more probable,
so no danger. More likely is such refcount abuse: ipc_rcu_getref() in
do_msgsnd() done a bit after ipc_rcu_putref() in freeque() (msq
pointer acquired by do_msgsend() before freeque() started); then,
after schedule(), do_msgsnd() can work with kfreed msq_queue structure
(at least considering classic RCU).
Regards,
Jarek P.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
