linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] proc: first_tid: fix the potential use-after-free

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 29 May 2013 14:30:09 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	Sergey Dyasly <dserrg@...il.com>,
	Sha Zhengju <handai.szj@...bao.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] proc: first_tid: fix the potential use-after-free

On 05/28, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> writes:
>
> > proc_task_readdir() verifies that the result of get_proc_task()
> > is pid_alive() and thus its ->group_leader is fine too. However
> > this is not necessarily true after rcu_read_unlock(), we need
> > to recheck this after first_tid() does rcu_read_lock() again.
>
> I agree with you but you are missing something critical from your
> explanation.  If a process has been passed through __unhash_process
> then task->thread_group.next (aka next_thread) returns a pointer to the
> process that was it's next thread in the thread group.  Importantly
> that pointer is only guaranteed to point to valid memory until the rcu
> grace period expires.

I tried to explain this below, in 1-4 steps... But OK, agreed, this
should be explained more clearly.

I'll update the changelog.

> > Note that we need 2. and 3. only because of get_nr_threads() check,
> > and this check was supposed to be optimization only.
>
> An optimization and denial of service attack prevention.  It keeps us
> spinning for nearly unbounded amounts of time in the rcu critical
> section.

I do not really think we need this check to prevent the DoS attacks.

The main loop does while_each_thread(), so it will stop after
nr_threads iterations. And a user can always do llseek to trigger
the "full" scan.

But this is off-topic, and

> But I agree it should not be needed from this part of
> correctness.

Yes.

> >
> > -	/* If nr exceeds the number of threads there is nothing todo */
> >  	pos = NULL;
> > +	/* If nr exceeds the number of threads there is nothing todo */
>
> Moving the comment is just noise and makes for confusing reading of your
> patch.

Well, I think this makes the code look a bit better. Without this change
the code will be

        /* If nr exceeds the number of threads there is nothing todo */
        pos = NULL;
        if (nr && nr >= get_nr_threads(leader))
                goto out;
        /* It could be unhashed before we take rcu lock */
        if (!pid_alive(leader))
                goto out;

and the comments explaining the checks are not "simmetrical". But I won't
argue, I'll update the patch and remove it. 3/3 changes this code anyway.

Oleg.

--
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/