From: WANG Cong <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
To: Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: [Patch] kernel/exit.c: Fix use-before-check in exit_mm()
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:25:47 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071116022546.GA2563@hacking> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9a8748490711151634t6d8cfb5tf8c3953c74a6b9a3@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 01:34:54AM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
>On 13/11/2007, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote:
>> Jesper Juhl wrote:
>> > In kernel/exit.c we have this code :
>> >
>> > static void exit_mm(struct task_struct * tsk)
>> > {
>> > struct mm_struct *mm = tsk->mm;
>> >
>> > mm_release(tsk, mm);
>> > if (!mm)
>> > return;
>> > ...
>> >
>> >
>> > But, mm_release() may dereference it's second argument ('mm'), so
>> > shouldn't we be doing the "!mm" test *before* we call mm_release() and
>> > not after?
>> > I don't know the mm code well enough to be able to tell if some of the
>> > other stuff mm_release does needs to be done always and the mm
>> > dereference can't actually happen, but maybe someone else who knows
>> > the code better can tell... In any case, what's currently there looks
>> > a little shaky..
>> >
>>
>> Yeah, it looks wrong. mm_release() calls deactivate_mm() as its first
>> act, which could well dereference mm (though it often doesn't).
>>
>So, whould simply moving the !mm check up as the first in the function
>be an appropriate way to deal with this?
I think yes. Patch below.
Fix use-before-check in kernel/exit.c
Signed-off-by: WANG Cong <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
---
diff --git a/kernel/exit.c b/kernel/exit.c
index cd0f1d4..dca1e0d 100644
--- a/kernel/exit.c
+++ b/kernel/exit.c
@@ -558,9 +558,9 @@ static void exit_mm(struct task_struct * tsk)
{
struct mm_struct *mm = tsk->mm;
- mm_release(tsk, mm);
if (!mm)
return;
+ mm_release(tsk, mm);
/*
* Serialize with any possible pending coredump.
* We must hold mmap_sem around checking core_waiters
prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-11-16 2:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-11-11 23:40 mm_release() call in exit_mm() looks dangerous Jesper Juhl
2007-11-13 0:48 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-11-16 0:34 ` Jesper Juhl
2007-11-16 2:25 ` WANG Cong [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20071116022546.GA2563@hacking \
--to=xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com \
--cc=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=jesper.juhl@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox