linux-kernel - Re: [patch for-3.7] mm, mempolicy: fix printing stack contents in numa

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHGf_=qSy63-H0ZgdYBtUmdDpxacmAcK=L7X+Ajgr8Yboztqig@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 16 Oct 2012 21:38:26 -0400
From:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, bhutchings@...arflare.com,
	Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org>,
	Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [patch for-3.7] mm, mempolicy: fix printing stack contents in numa_maps

On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:31 PM, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> wrote:
> When reading /proc/pid/numa_maps, it's possible to return the contents of
> the stack where the mempolicy string should be printed if the policy gets
> freed from beneath us.
>
> This happens because mpol_to_str() may return an error the
> stack-allocated buffer is then printed without ever being stored.
>
> There are two possible error conditions in mpol_to_str():
>
>  - if the buffer allocated is insufficient for the string to be stored,
>    and
>
>  - if the mempolicy has an invalid mode.
>
> The first error condition is not triggered in any of the callers to
> mpol_to_str(): at least 50 bytes is always allocated on the stack and this
> is sufficient for the string to be written.  A future patch should convert
> this into BUILD_BUG_ON() since we know the maximum strlen possible, but
> that's not -rc material.
>
> The second error condition is possible if a race occurs in dropping a
> reference to a task's mempolicy causing it to be freed during the read().
> The slab poison value is then used for the mode and mpol_to_str() returns
> -EINVAL.
>
> This race is only possible because get_vma_policy() believes that
> mm->mmap_sem protects task->mempolicy, which isn't true.  The exit path
> does not hold mm->mmap_sem when dropping the reference or setting
> task->mempolicy to NULL: it uses task_lock(task) instead.
>
> Thus, it's required for the caller of a task mempolicy to hold
> task_lock(task) while grabbing the mempolicy and reading it.  Callers with
> a vma policy store their mempolicy earlier and can simply increment the
> reference count so it's guaranteed not to be freed.
>
> Reported-by: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
> ---
>  fs/proc/task_mmu.c |    7 +++++--
>  mm/mempolicy.c     |    5 ++---
>  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> --- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> @@ -1158,6 +1158,7 @@ static int show_numa_map(struct seq_file *m, void *v, int is_pid)
>         struct vm_area_struct *vma = v;
>         struct numa_maps *md = &numa_priv->md;
>         struct file *file = vma->vm_file;
> +       struct task_struct *task = proc_priv->task;
>         struct mm_struct *mm = vma->vm_mm;
>         struct mm_walk walk = {};
>         struct mempolicy *pol;
> @@ -1177,9 +1178,11 @@ static int show_numa_map(struct seq_file *m, void *v, int is_pid)
>         walk.private = md;
>         walk.mm = mm;
>
> -       pol = get_vma_policy(proc_priv->task, vma, vma->vm_start);
> +       task_lock(task);
> +       pol = get_vma_policy(task, vma, vma->vm_start);
>         mpol_to_str(buffer, sizeof(buffer), pol, 0);
>         mpol_cond_put(pol);
> +       task_unlock(task);
>
>         seq_printf(m, "%08lx %s", vma->vm_start, buffer);
>
> @@ -1189,7 +1192,7 @@ static int show_numa_map(struct seq_file *m, void *v, int is_pid)
>         } else if (vma->vm_start <= mm->brk && vma->vm_end >= mm->start_brk) {
>                 seq_printf(m, " heap");
>         } else {
> -               pid_t tid = vm_is_stack(proc_priv->task, vma, is_pid);
> +               pid_t tid = vm_is_stack(task, vma, is_pid);
>                 if (tid != 0) {
>                         /*
>                          * Thread stack in /proc/PID/task/TID/maps or
> diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
> index 0b78fb9..d04a8a5 100644
> --- a/mm/mempolicy.c
> +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
> @@ -1536,9 +1536,8 @@ asmlinkage long compat_sys_mbind(compat_ulong_t start, compat_ulong_t len,
>   *
>   * Returns effective policy for a VMA at specified address.
>   * Falls back to @task or system default policy, as necessary.
> - * Current or other task's task mempolicy and non-shared vma policies
> - * are protected by the task's mmap_sem, which must be held for read by
> - * the caller.
> + * Current or other task's task mempolicy and non-shared vma policies must be
> + * protected by task_lock(task) by the caller.

This is not correct. mmap_sem is needed for protecting vma. task_lock()
is needed to close vs exit race only when task != current. In other word,
caller must held both mmap_sem and task_lock if task != current.




>   * Shared policies [those marked as MPOL_F_SHARED] require an extra reference
>   * count--added by the get_policy() vm_op, as appropriate--to protect against
>   * freeing by another task.  It is the caller's responsibility to free the
--
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/