In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: rust_binder: call set_notification_done() without proc lock Consider the following sequence of events on a death listener: 1. The remote process dies and sends a BR_DEAD_BINDER message. 2. The local process invokes the BC_CLEAR_DEATH_NOTIFICATION command. 3. The local process then invokes the BC_DEAD_BINDER_DONE. Then, the kernel will reply to the BC_DEAD_BINDER_DONE command with a BR_CLEAR_DEATH_NOTIFICATION_DONE reply using push_work_if_looper(). However, this can result in a deadlock if the current thread is not a looper. This is because dead_binder_done() still holds the proc lock during set_notification_done(), which called push_work_if_looper(). Normally, push_work_if_looper() takes the thread lock, which is fine to take under the proc lock. But if the current thread is not a looper, then it falls back to delivering the reply to the process work queue, which involves taking the proc lock. Since the proc lock i...

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: rust_binder: call set_notification_done() without proc lock Consider the following sequence of events on a death listener: 1. The remote process dies and sends a BR_DEAD_BINDER message. 2. The local process invokes the BC_CLEAR_DEATH_NOTIFICATION command. 3. The local process then invokes the BC_DEAD_BINDER_DONE. Then, the kernel will reply to the BC_DEAD_BINDER_DONE command with a BR_CLEAR_DEATH_NOTIFICATION_DONE reply using push_work_if_looper(). However, this can result in a deadlock if the current thread is not a looper. This is because dead_binder_done() still holds the proc lock during set_notification_done(), which called push_work_if_looper(). Normally, push_work_if_looper() takes the thread lock, which is fine to take under the proc lock. But if the current thread is not a looper, then it falls back to delivering the reply to the process work queue, which involves taking the proc lock. Since the proc lock i...

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: rust_binder: call set_notification_done() without proc lock Consider the following sequence of events on a death listener: 1. The remote process dies and sends a BR_DEAD_BINDER message. 2. The local process invokes the BC_CLEAR_DEATH_NOTIFICATION command. 3. The local process then invokes the BC_DEAD_BINDER_DONE. Then, the kernel will reply to the BC_DEAD_BINDER_DONE command with a BR_CLEAR_DEATH_NOTIFICATION_DONE reply using push_work_if_looper(). However, this can result in a deadlock if the current thread is not a looper. This is because dead_binder_done() still holds the proc lock during set_notification_done(), which called push_work_if_looper(). Normally, push_work_if_looper() takes the thread lock, which is fine to take under the proc lock. But if the current thread is not a looper, then it falls back to delivering the reply to the process work queue, which involves taking the proc lock. Since the proc lock i

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: r ...

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: rust_binder: call set_notification_done() without proc lock Consider the following sequence of events on a death listener: 1. The remote process dies and sends a BR_DEAD_BINDER message. 2. The local process invokes the BC_CLEAR_DEATH_NOTIFICATION command. 3. The local process then invokes the BC_DEAD_BINDER_DONE. Then, the kernel will reply to the BC_DEAD_BINDER_DONE command with a BR_CLEAR_DEATH_NOTIFICATION_DONE reply using push_work_if_looper(). However, this can result in a deadlock if the current thread is not a looper. This is because dead_binder_done() still holds the proc lock during set_notification_done(), which called push_work_if_looper(). Normally, push_work_if_looper() takes the thread lock, which is fine to take under the proc lock. But if the current thread is not a looper, then it falls back to delivering the reply to the process work queue, which involves taking the proc lock. Since the proc loc...