2009/8/21 Bob Copeland <me@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 02:02:49PM +0200, Vegard Nossum wrote:
>> > I'll try that and kmemcheck next.
>>
>> Hm, I'm afraid kmemcheck gives some known false positives related to
>> bitfields in ext4 code, so in the case that something turned up, it
>> might be hard to distinguish it from those false positives.
>
> Well I didn't get anything from ext4 so far. I did hit one with
> fsnotify:
>
> WARNING: kmemcheck: Caught 32-bit read from freed memory (f34a443c)
> eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee008a06f700011000
> a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a f f f f f f f f
> ^
>
> Pid: 2745, comm: fsck.ext4 Not tainted (2.6.31-rc6 #2) MacBook1,1
> EIP: 0060:[<c10f3656>] EFLAGS: 00010217 CPU: 0
> EIP is at inotify_handle_event+0x76/0xc0
> EAX: f34a443c EBX: f34a4438 ECX: 00000000 EDX: f6732000
> ESI: f6559764 EDI: 00000000 EBP: f6733f0c ESP: c1527450
> DS: 007b ES: 007b FS: 00d8 GS: 0033 SS: 0068
> CR0: 8005003b CR2: f6c046d4 CR3: 367fb000 CR4: 000026d0
> DR0: 00000000 DR1: 00000000 DR2: 00000000 DR3: 00000000
> DR6: ffff4ff0 DR7: 00000400
> [<c10f0d78>] fsnotify+0xa8/0x130
> [<c10c5e11>] __fput+0xb1/0x1e0
> [<c10c5f55>] fput+0x15/0x20
> [<c10c2ca7>] filp_close+0x47/0x80
> [<c10c2d54>] sys_close+0x74/0xc0
> [<c1002ec8>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x36
> [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff
>
> I think that is list_empty() here where %eax is list_head
> and event_list->next is the read location... which definitely
> doesn't look like a pointer, if I'm reading it correctly.
I think f34a443c is a valid pointer. On my machine, at least:
[ 0.004000] lowmem : 0xc0000000 - 0xf73fe000 ( 883 MB)
>
> inotify_fsnotify.o:
>
> /* did event_priv get attached? */
> if (list_empty(&fsn_event_priv->event_list))
> 143: 8d 43 04 lea 0x4(%ebx),%eax
>
> event_priv = kmem_cache_alloc(event_priv_cachep, GFP_KERNEL);
> if (unlikely(!event_priv))
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> fsn_event_priv = &event_priv->fsnotify_event_priv_data;
> 146: 39 43 04 cmp %eax,0x4(%ebx) <=== read here
> 149: 74 1d je 168 <inotify_handle_event+0x98>
I can see somewhat of a race, I think:
1. userspace calls inotify_read(), where we wait for something to happen:
249 while (1) {
250 prepare_to_wait(&group->notification_waitq, &wait,
TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
251
252 mutex_lock(&group->notification_mutex);
253 kevent = get_one_event(group, count);
254 mutex_unlock(&group->notification_mutex);
2. an event occurs, and inotify_handle_event() calls
fsnotify_add_notify_event():
64 ret = fsnotify_add_notify_event(group, event, fsn_event_priv);
65 /* EEXIST is not an error */
66 if (ret == -EEXIST)
67 ret = 0;
3. fsnotify_add_notify_event() adds the fsn_event_priv to the event,
and adds the event to the group, and finally wakes up anybody who is
waiting on &group->notification_waitq:
230 fsnotify_get_event(event);
231 list_add_tail(&holder->event_list, list);
232 if (priv)
233 list_add_tail(&priv->event_list, &event->private_data_list);
234 spin_unlock(&event->lock);
235 mutex_unlock(&group->notification_mutex);
236
237 wake_up(&group->notification_waitq);
4. inotify_read() wakes up and frees the event:
253 kevent = get_one_event(group, count);
5. inotify_handle_event() now dereferences the event_priv pointer,
which was already freed:
69 /* did event_priv get attached? */
70 if (list_empty(&fsn_event_priv->event_list))
I think that's it. Any thoughts? I put Eric Paris on Cc.
Vegard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
