On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:07:55 +0400 Kirill Korotaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 16:24:12 +0400
> > Pavel Emelianov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>When user locks an ipc shmem segmant with SHM_LOCK ctl and the
> >>segment is already locked the shmem_lock() function returns 0.
> >>After this the subsequent code leaks the existing user struct:
> >
> >
> > I'm curious. For the past few months, [EMAIL PROTECTED] have discovered
> > (and fixed) an ongoing stream of obscure but serious and quite
> > long-standing bugs.
>
> thanks a lot :@)
>
> > How are you discovering these bugs?
>
> Not sure what to answer :) Just trying to do our best.
hm, OK, I was visualising some mysterious Russian bugfinding machine or
something.
Don't stop ;)
> This bug was thought over by Pavel for about 3 month after a single
> uid leak in container was detected by beancounters' kernel memory
> accounting...
>
> >>== ipc/shm.c: sys_shmctl() ==
> >> ...
> >> err = shmem_lock(shp->shm_file, 1, user);
> >> if (!err) {
> >> shp->shm_perm.mode |= SHM_LOCKED;
> >> shp->mlock_user = user;
> >> }
> >> ...
> >>==
> >>
> >>Other results of this are:
> >>1. the new shp->mlock_user is not get-ed and will point to freed
> >> memory when the task dies.
> >
> >
> > That sounds fairly serious - can this lead to memory corruption and crashes?
>
> Yes it can. According to Pavel when the shmem segment is destroyed it
> puts the mlock_user pointer, which can already be stalled.
OK, thanks, I'll feed a copy in [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s direction.
-
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/
