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: <CABPqkBQ9yGaXtHomrvBtjXs0K4fvgcqceOpM2sTYSSg+F+6_dg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 22 May 2015 02:26:48 -0700
From:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
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

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 11:49 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>
> * 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.
>
Peter and I will clean this up.

>
> A month ago perf became fuzzing-proof, and now that's down the drain
> again...
>
It will be fixed this week.
--
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/