[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: kernel panic in latest vanilla stable, while using nameif with "alive" pppoe interfaces



The entire scheme for managing net namespaces seems unsafe.  We depend
on synchronization via pn->hash_lock, but have no guarantee of the
existence of the "net" object -- hence no way to ensure the existence
of the lock itself.  This should be relatively easy to fix though as
we should be able to get/put the net namespace as we add remove
objects to/from the pppoe hash.

Once you solve this existence issue, the flush_lock can be eliminated
altogether since all of the relevant code paths already depend on a
write_lock_bh(&pn->hash_lock), and that's the lock that should be use
to protect the pppoe_dev field.

Another patch to follow later...

--
Michal Ostrowski
mostrows@xxxxxxxxx



On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 7:36 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Michal Ostrowski a écrit :
>> Here's my theory on this after an inital look...
>>
>> Looking at the oops report and disassembly of the actual module binary
>> that caused the oops, one can deduce that:
>>
>> Execution was in pppoe_flush_dev().  %ebx contained the pointer "struct
>> pppox_sock *po", which is what we faulted on, excuting "cmp %eax, 0x190(%ebx)".
>> %ebx value was 0xffffffff (hence we got "NULL pointer dereference at 0x18f").
>>
>> At this point "i" (stored in %esi) is 15 (valid), meaning that we got a value
>> of 0xffffffff in pn->hash_table[i].
>>
>>>From this I'd hypothesize that the combination of dev_put() and release_sock()
>> may have allowed us to free "pn".  At the bottom of the loop we alreayd
>> recognize that since locks are dropped we're responsible for handling
>> invalidation of objects, and perhaps that should be extended to "pn" as well.
>> --
>> Michal Ostrowski
>> mostrows@xxxxxxxxx
>>
>>
>
> Looking at this stuff, I do believe flush_lock protection is not
> properly done.
>
> At the end of pppoe_connect() for example we can find :
>
> err_put:
>        if (po->pppoe_dev) {
>                dev_put(po->pppoe_dev);
>                po->pppoe_dev = NULL;
>        }
>
> This is done without any protection, and can therefore clash with
> pppoe_flush_dev() :
>
>        spin_lock(&flush_lock);
>        po->pppoe_dev = NULL; /* ppoe_dev can already be NULL before this point */
>        spin_unlock(&flush_lock);
>
>        dev_put(dev);    /* oops */
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ppp" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Linux Audio Users]     [Hams]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Yosemite Photos]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux Resources]     [Fedora Users]

Powered by Linux