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

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: <20170314151910.GA31766@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Mar 2017 16:19:10 +0100
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: perf: use-after-free in perf_release

On 03/14, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> 	    mutex_unlock(ctx->lock);
> 	    put_ctx() /* >0 */
> 	  free_task();
> 					    mutex_lock(ctx->lock);
> 					    mutex_lock(A->child_mutex);
> 					    /* ... */
> 					    mutex_unlock(A->child_mutex);
> 					    mutex_unlock(ctx->lock)
> 					    put_ctx() /* 0 */
> 					      ctx->task && !TOMBSTONE
> 					        put_task_struct() /* UAF */
>
>
> Something like that, right?

Yes, exactly.

> Let me see if it makes sense to retain perf_event_free_task() at all;
> maybe we should always do perf_event_exit_task().

Yes, perhaps... but this needs changes too. Say, WARN_ON_ONCE(child != current)
in perf_event_exit_task_context(). And even perf_event_task(new => F) does not
look right in this case. In fact it would be simply buggy to do this, this task
was not fully constructed yet, so even perf_event_pid(task) is not safe.

Oleg.