linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] futex: Fix potential use-after-free in FUTEX_REQUEUE

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: <20161201045530.GA124104@f23x64.localdomain>
Date:   Wed, 30 Nov 2016 20:55:30 -0800
From:   Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] futex: Fix potential use-after-free in FUTEX_REQUEUE_PI

On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 04:38:08PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 04:19:41PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Nov 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > While working on the futex code, I stumbled over this potential
> > > use-after-free scenario.
> > > 
> > > pi_mutex is a pointer into pi_state, which we drop the reference on in
> > > unqueue_me_pi(). So any access to that pointer after that is bad.
> > > 
> > > Since other sites already do rt_mutex_unlock() with hb->lock held, see
> > > for example futex_lock_pi(), simply move the unlock before
> > > unqueue_me_pi().
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> > > ---
> > >  kernel/futex.c | 22 +++++++++++++---------
> > >  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/kernel/futex.c b/kernel/futex.c
> > > index 2c4be467fecd..d5a81339209f 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/futex.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/futex.c
> > > @@ -2813,7 +2813,6 @@ static int futex_wait_requeue_pi(u32 __user *uaddr, unsigned int flags,
> > >  {
> > >  	struct hrtimer_sleeper timeout, *to = NULL;
> > >  	struct rt_mutex_waiter rt_waiter;
> > > -	struct rt_mutex *pi_mutex = NULL;
> > >  	struct futex_hash_bucket *hb;
> > >  	union futex_key key2 = FUTEX_KEY_INIT;
> > >  	struct futex_q q = futex_q_init;
> > > @@ -2905,6 +2904,8 @@ static int futex_wait_requeue_pi(u32 __user *uaddr, unsigned int flags,
> > >  			spin_unlock(q.lock_ptr);
> > 
> > In this path the fixup can return -EFAIL as well, so it should drop rtmutex
> > too if it owns it. We should move the rtmutex drop into the fixup functions...
> 
> Urgh, so would really like to avoid doing that, I'll have to instantly
> drag it back out again :/

Why would you have to drag it back out again? Something else you're working on?

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center