linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/10] perf,x86: Fix event/group validation

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]

Message-ID: <20150522064955.GA26489@gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 22 May 2015 08:49:55 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
	"Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Hunter <ahh@...gle.com>,
	Maria Dimakopoulou <maria.n.dimakopoulou@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] perf,x86: Fix event/group validation


* Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 7:03 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-05-21 at 06:36 -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 2015-05-21 at 06:27 -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> >> >> Or are you talking about a preemption while executing x86_schedule_events()?
> >> >
> >> > That.
> >> >
> >> > And we can of course cure that by an earlier patch I send; but I find it
> >> > a much simpler rule to just never allow modifying global state for
> >> > validation.
> >>
> >> I can see  validation being preempted, but not the context switch code path.
> >> Is that what you are talking about?
> >>
> >> You are saying validate_group() is in the middle of x86_schedule_events()
> >> using fake_cpuc, when it gets preempted. The context switch code when it loads
> >> the new thread's PMU state calls x86_schedule_events() which modifies the
> >> cpuc->event_list[]->hwc. But this is cpuc vs. fake_cpuc again. So yes, the calls
> >> nest but they do not touch the same state.
> >
> > They both touch event->hw->constraint.
> >
> >>  And when you eventually come back
> >> to validate_group() you are back to using the fake_cpuc. So I am still not clear
> >> on how the corruption can happen.
> >
> > validate_group()
> >   x86_schedule_events()
> >     event->hw.constraint = c; # store
> >
> >      <context switch>
> >        perf_task_event_sched_in()
> >          ...
> >            x86_schedule_events();
> >              event->hw.constraint = c2; # store
> >
> >              ...
> >
> >              put_event_constraints(event); # assume failure to schedule
> >                intel_put_event_constraints()
> >                  event->hw.constraint = NULL;
> >
> >       <context switch end>
> >
> >     c = event->hw.constraint; # read -> NULL
> >
> >     if (!test_bit(hwc->idx, c->idxmsk)) # <- *BOOM* NULL deref
> >
> >
> > This in particular is possible when the event in question is a cpu-wide
> > event and group-leader, where the validate_group() tries to add an event
> > to the group.
>
> Ok, I think I get it now. It is not related to fake_cpuc vs. cpuc, 
> it is related to the fact that the constraint is cached in the event 
> struct itself and that one is shared between validate_group() and 
> x86_schedule_events() because cpu_hw_event->event_list[] is an array 
> of pointers to events and not an array of events.

Btw., comments and the code structure should be greatly enhanced to 
make all that very clear and hard to mess up.

A month ago perf became fuzzing-proof, and now that's down the drain 
again...

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/