Message-ID: <4AC6CF92.8020800@gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 03 Oct 2009 06:14:10 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Anirban Sinha <ASinha@...gmasystems.com>
CC:	Darren Hart <dvhltc@...ibm.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Kaz Kylheku <KKylheku@...gmasystems.com>
Subject: Re: futex question

Anirban Sinha a écrit :
>>
>> Thanks for sending the patch.  I'm looking into it now.  Couple
> questions:
>> 1) What caused you to instrument this path in the first place?  Were
> you
>> seeing some unexpected behavior?
> 
> Basically, all this started as a means to aid debug or at least isolate
> cases of memory corruption. When a process holding a futex died, the
> robust futex cleanup operation can be foiled if there are any memory
> corruptions in the user land. The "carefully inspecting the user land
> linked list" part would bail out silently. So no process would get
> EOWNERDEAD and wake up. So we decided to add printks so that we can
> track these silent return cases.
> 
> We thought that actual number of cases of silently bailing out would be
> rare so we did not expect any of those logs in the kernel buffer under
> regular circumstances. To our surprise, we found lots of those logs!
> This puzzled us.  I looked at the code again and again but it deed some
> seem to have any issues. Then it occurred to us (kaz) that an execve()
> call can also cause invalid pointer values to remain in the task
> structure. I did some testing and it seemed to indicate that this was
> indeed the case.
> 
> There is a discussion on this by Kaz on the linux mips mailing list:
> 
> http://www.linux-mips.org/archives/linux-mips/2009-09/msg00130.html

This exactly looks like what I discovered a while ago about futex used
for pthread management. Anirban, this is a real security flaw and this
should be fixed as fast as possible :)

Commit 9c8a8228d0827e0d91d28527209988f672f97d28
author	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
	Thu, 6 Aug 2009 22:09:28 +0000 (15:09 -0700)
execve: must clear current->clear_child_tid

While looking at Jens Rosenboom bug report
(http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/7/27/35) about strange sys_futex call done from
a dying "ps" program, we found following problem.

clone() syscall has special support for TID of created threads.  This
support includes two features.

One (CLONE_CHILD_SETTID) is to set an integer into user memory with the
TID value.

One (CLONE_CHILD_CLEARTID) is to clear this same integer once the created
thread dies.

The integer location is a user provided pointer, provided at clone()
time.

kernel keeps this pointer value into current->clear_child_tid.

At execve() time, we should make sure kernel doesnt keep this user
provided pointer, as full user memory is replaced by a new one.

As glibc fork() actually uses clone() syscall with CLONE_CHILD_SETTID and
CLONE_CHILD_CLEARTID set, chances are high that we might corrupt user
memory in forked processes.

Following sequence could happen:

1) bash (or any program) starts a new process, by a fork() call that
   glibc maps to a clone( ...  CLONE_CHILD_SETTID | CLONE_CHILD_CLEARTID
   ...) syscall

2) When new process starts, its current->clear_child_tid is set to a
   location that has a meaning only in bash (or initial program) context
   (&THREAD_SELF->tid)

3) This new process does the execve() syscall to start a new program.
   current->clear_child_tid is left unchanged (a non NULL value)

4) If this new program creates some threads, and initial thread exits,
   kernel will attempt to clear the integer pointed by
   current->clear_child_tid from mm_release() :

        if (tsk->clear_child_tid
            && !(tsk->flags & PF_SIGNALED)
            && atomic_read(&mm->mm_users) > 1) {
                u32 __user * tidptr = tsk->clear_child_tid;
                tsk->clear_child_tid = NULL;

                /*
                 * We don't check the error code - if userspace has
                 * not set up a proper pointer then tough luck.
                 */
<< here >>      put_user(0, tidptr);
                sys_futex(tidptr, FUTEX_WAKE, 1, NULL, NULL, 0);
        }

5) OR : if new program is not multi-threaded, but spied by /proc/pid
   users (ps command for example), mm_users > 1, and the exiting program
   could corrupt 4 bytes in a persistent memory area (shm or memory mapped
   file)

If current->clear_child_tid points to a writeable portion of memory of the
new program, kernel happily and silently corrupts 4 bytes of memory, with
unexpected effects.

Fix is straightforward and should not break any sane program.

Reported-by: Jens Rosenboom <jens@...one.net>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@...ibm.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: <stable@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists