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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 16 Mar 2017 13:05:32 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
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 Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 05:43:02PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/14, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > --- a/kernel/events/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
> > @@ -10346,6 +10346,17 @@ void perf_event_free_task(struct task_struct *task)
> >  			continue;
> >
> >  		mutex_lock(&ctx->mutex);
> > +		raw_spin_lock_irq(&ctx->lock);
> > +		/*
> > +		 * Destroy the task <-> ctx relation and mark the context dead.
> > +		 *
> > +		 * This is important because even though the task hasn't been
> > +		 * exposed yet the context has been (through child_list).
> > +		 */
> > +		RCU_INIT_POINTER(task->perf_event_ctxp[ctxn], NULL);
> > +		WRITE_ONCE(ctx->task, TASK_TOMBSTONE);
> > +		put_task_struct(task); /* cannot be last */
> > +		raw_spin_unlock_irq(&ctx->lock);
> 
> Agreed, this is what I had in mind. Although you know, I spent 3
> hours looking at your patch and I still can't convince myself I am
> really sure it closes all races ;)

Ha; yes I know that feeling. I used to have a few sheets of paper filled
with diagrams. Sadly I could not find them again. Must've been over
eager cleaning my desk at some point.

> 
> OK, I believe this is correct. And iiuc both RCU_INIT_POINTER(NULL)
> and put_task_struct() are not strictly necessary? At least until we
> add WARN_ON(tsk->usage != 2) before free_task() in copy process().

Right; I just kept the code similar to the other location. I even
considered making a helper function to not duplicate, but in the end
decided against it.

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> This is off-topic, but to me list_for_each_entry(event->child_list)
> in perf_event_release_kernel() looks very confusing and misleading.
> And list_first_entry_or_null(), we do not really need NULL if list
> is empty, tmp == child should be F even if we use list_first_entry().
> And given that we already have list_is_last(), it would be nice to
> add list_is_first() and cleanup perf_event_release_kernel() a bit:
> 

Agreed; its a bit of a weird one.

Let me go write proper patches for the things we have so far though.