linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.9 65/66] perf/core: Fix concurrent sys_perf_event_open() vs. move

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: <20170131053605.923398265@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Tue, 31 Jan 2017 06:37:09 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, John Dias <joaodias@...gle.com>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Min Chong <mchong@...gle.com>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 4.9 65/66] perf/core: Fix concurrent sys_perf_event_open() vs. move_group race

4.9-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>

commit 321027c1fe77f892f4ea07846aeae08cefbbb290 upstream.

Di Shen reported a race between two concurrent sys_perf_event_open()
calls where both try and move the same pre-existing software group
into a hardware context.

The problem is exactly that described in commit:

  f63a8daa5812 ("perf: Fix event->ctx locking")

... where, while we wait for a ctx->mutex acquisition, the event->ctx
relation can have changed under us.

That very same commit failed to recognise sys_perf_event_context() as an
external access vector to the events and thereby didn't apply the
established locking rules correctly.

So while one sys_perf_event_open() call is stuck waiting on
mutex_lock_double(), the other (which owns said locks) moves the group
about. So by the time the former sys_perf_event_open() acquires the
locks, the context we've acquired is stale (and possibly dead).

Apply the established locking rules as per perf_event_ctx_lock_nested()
to the mutex_lock_double() for the 'move_group' case. This obviously means
we need to validate state after we acquire the locks.

Reported-by: Di Shen (Keen Lab)
Tested-by: John Dias <joaodias@...gle.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Min Chong <mchong@...gle.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>
Fixes: f63a8daa5812 ("perf: Fix event->ctx locking")
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170106131444.GZ3174@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 kernel/events/core.c |   58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 54 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

--- a/kernel/events/core.c
+++ b/kernel/events/core.c
@@ -9503,6 +9503,37 @@ static int perf_event_set_clock(struct p
 	return 0;
 }
 
+/*
+ * Variation on perf_event_ctx_lock_nested(), except we take two context
+ * mutexes.
+ */
+static struct perf_event_context *
+__perf_event_ctx_lock_double(struct perf_event *group_leader,
+			     struct perf_event_context *ctx)
+{
+	struct perf_event_context *gctx;
+
+again:
+	rcu_read_lock();
+	gctx = READ_ONCE(group_leader->ctx);
+	if (!atomic_inc_not_zero(&gctx->refcount)) {
+		rcu_read_unlock();
+		goto again;
+	}
+	rcu_read_unlock();
+
+	mutex_lock_double(&gctx->mutex, &ctx->mutex);
+
+	if (group_leader->ctx != gctx) {
+		mutex_unlock(&ctx->mutex);
+		mutex_unlock(&gctx->mutex);
+		put_ctx(gctx);
+		goto again;
+	}
+
+	return gctx;
+}
+
 /**
  * sys_perf_event_open - open a performance event, associate it to a task/cpu
  *
@@ -9746,12 +9777,31 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(perf_event_open,
 	}
 
 	if (move_group) {
-		gctx = group_leader->ctx;
-		mutex_lock_double(&gctx->mutex, &ctx->mutex);
+		gctx = __perf_event_ctx_lock_double(group_leader, ctx);
+
 		if (gctx->task == TASK_TOMBSTONE) {
 			err = -ESRCH;
 			goto err_locked;
 		}
+
+		/*
+		 * Check if we raced against another sys_perf_event_open() call
+		 * moving the software group underneath us.
+		 */
+		if (!(group_leader->group_caps & PERF_EV_CAP_SOFTWARE)) {
+			/*
+			 * If someone moved the group out from under us, check
+			 * if this new event wound up on the same ctx, if so
+			 * its the regular !move_group case, otherwise fail.
+			 */
+			if (gctx != ctx) {
+				err = -EINVAL;
+				goto err_locked;
+			} else {
+				perf_event_ctx_unlock(group_leader, gctx);
+				move_group = 0;
+			}
+		}
 	} else {
 		mutex_lock(&ctx->mutex);
 	}
@@ -9853,7 +9903,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(perf_event_open,
 	perf_unpin_context(ctx);
 
 	if (move_group)
-		mutex_unlock(&gctx->mutex);
+		perf_event_ctx_unlock(group_leader, gctx);
 	mutex_unlock(&ctx->mutex);
 
 	if (task) {
@@ -9879,7 +9929,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(perf_event_open,
 
 err_locked:
 	if (move_group)
-		mutex_unlock(&gctx->mutex);
+		perf_event_ctx_unlock(group_leader, gctx);
 	mutex_unlock(&ctx->mutex);
 /* err_file: */
 	fput(event_file);