linux-kernel - Re: use-after-free in __perf_install_in

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:	Fri, 4 Dec 2015 12:32:14 -0800
From:	Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>,
	Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
	Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: use-after-free in __perf_install_in_context

On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 09:04:35PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> While running syzkaller fuzzer I am seeing lots of the following
> use-after-free reports. Unfortunately all my numerous attempts to
> reproduce them in a controlled environment failed. They pop up during
> fuzzing periodically (once in several hours in a single VM), but
> whenever I try to stress-replay what happened in the VM before the
> report, the use-after-free does not reproduce. Can somebody
> knowledgeable in perf subsystem look at the report? Maybe it is
> possible to figure out what happened based purely on the report. I can
> pretty reliably test any proposed fixes.
> All reports look like this one. Then it is usually followed by other
> reports and eventually kernel hangs or dies. What happens in the
> fuzzer is essentially random syscalls with random arguments, tasks
> born and die concurrently and so on. I was able to reproduce it by
> restricting syscalls only to perf_event_open, perf ioctls and bpf
> syscall.

For the sake of trying to narrow it down:
does the error disappear when you stop using bpf syscall in your fuzzing?
If yes, then I could have missed some interaction between perf_event_free,
kprobe free and bpf_prog_free.
There was a race there before.
May be there is still something else.

--
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/