| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20170329022037.GA19448@sejong>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 11:20:37 +0900
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kernel-team@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] ftrace: Fix function pid filter on instances
Hi Steve,
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:08:41PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 10:46:22 +0900
> Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > When function tracer has a pid filter, it adds a probe to sched_switch
> > to track if current task can be ignored. The probe checks the
> > ftrace_ignore_pid from current tr to filter tasks. But it misses to
> > delete the probe when removing an instance so that it can cause a crash
> > due to the invalid tr pointer (use-after-free).
> >
> > This is easily reproducible with the following:
> >
> > # cd /sys/kernel/debug/tracing
> > # mkdir instances/buggy
> > # echo $$ > instances/buggy/set_ftrace_pid
> > # rmdir instances/buggy
> >
> > ============================================================================
> > BUG: KASAN: use-after-free in ftrace_filter_pid_sched_switch_probe+0x3d/0x90
> > Read of size 8 by task kworker/0:1/17
> > CPU: 0 PID: 17 Comm: kworker/0:1 Tainted: G B 4.11.0-rc3 #198
> > Call Trace:
> > dump_stack+0x68/0x9f
> > kasan_object_err+0x21/0x70
> > kasan_report.part.1+0x22b/0x500
> > ? ftrace_filter_pid_sched_switch_probe+0x3d/0x90
> > kasan_report+0x25/0x30
> > __asan_load8+0x5e/0x70
> > ftrace_filter_pid_sched_switch_probe+0x3d/0x90
> > ? fpid_start+0x130/0x130
> > __schedule+0x571/0xce0
> > ...
> >
> > To fix it, use ftrace_pid_reset() to unregister the probe. As
> > instance_rmdir() already updated ftrace codes, it can just free the
> > filter safely.
> >
> > Fixes: 0c8916c34203 ("tracing: Add rmdir to remove multibuffer instances")
> > Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
> > ---
> > kernel/trace/ftrace.c | 10 ++++++----
> > kernel/trace/trace.c | 1 +
> > kernel/trace/trace.h | 2 ++
> > 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> > index 0556a202c055..b451a860e885 100644
> > --- a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> > @@ -5598,13 +5598,15 @@ static void clear_ftrace_pids(struct trace_array *tr)
> > trace_free_pid_list(pid_list);
> > }
> >
> > -static void ftrace_pid_reset(struct trace_array *tr)
> > +void ftrace_pid_reset(struct trace_array *tr, bool update)
> > {
> > mutex_lock(&ftrace_lock);
> > clear_ftrace_pids(tr);
> >
> > - ftrace_update_pid_func();
> > - ftrace_startup_all(0);
> > + if (update) {
> > + ftrace_update_pid_func();
> > + ftrace_startup_all(0);
> > + }
> >
> > mutex_unlock(&ftrace_lock);
> > }
>
> I think it is better to create a new function here. I mean, you just
> added a bool, that removes 2 thirds of the code when false.
>
>
> > @@ -5676,7 +5678,7 @@ ftrace_pid_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
> >
> > if ((file->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE) &&
> > (file->f_flags & O_TRUNC))
> > - ftrace_pid_reset(tr);
> > + ftrace_pid_reset(tr, true);
> >
> > ret = seq_open(file, &ftrace_pid_sops);
> > if (ret < 0) {
> > diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace.c b/kernel/trace/trace.c
> > index b5d4b80f2d45..b92489dfa829 100644
> > --- a/kernel/trace/trace.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace.c
> > @@ -7485,6 +7485,7 @@ static int instance_rmdir(const char *name)
> >
> > tracing_set_nop(tr);
> > event_trace_del_tracer(tr);
> > + ftrace_pid_reset(tr, false);
>
> Actually, if this is called after event_trace_del_tracer(), the tr is
> already invisible and nothing new should change.
I don't follow. After event_trace_del_tracer(), the tr is invisible
from the probe of event tracing but still is visible from the probe of
function tracing, right?
>
> Make a wrapper around clear_ftrace_pids() and call that instead. We
> don't even need to take a lock, but as I see there's a lockdep test for
> ftrace_lock, we should still do so just to be safe.
Right, that's why I call ftrace_pid_reset() instead of
clear_ftrace_pids(). So do you prefer adding a new wrapper like below
rather than reusing ftrace_pid_reset() with a new argument?
Thanks,
Namhyung
>
> void ftrace_clear_pids(struct trace_array *tr)
> {
> mutex_lock(&ftrace_lock);
>
> clear_ftrace_pids(tr);
>
> mutex_unlock(&ftrace_lock);
> }
>
> -- Steve
>
>
> > ftrace_destroy_function_files(tr);
> > tracefs_remove_recursive(tr->dir);
> > free_trace_buffers(tr);
> > diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace.h b/kernel/trace/trace.h
> > index 571acee52a32..4d9804fd9a2d 100644
> > --- a/kernel/trace/trace.h
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace.h
> > @@ -897,6 +897,7 @@ void ftrace_init_tracefs(struct trace_array *tr, struct dentry *d_tracer);
> > void ftrace_init_tracefs_toplevel(struct trace_array *tr,
> > struct dentry *d_tracer);
> > int init_function_trace(void);
> > +void ftrace_pid_reset(struct trace_array *tr, bool update);
> > #else
> > static inline int ftrace_trace_task(struct trace_array *tr)
> > {
> > @@ -916,6 +917,7 @@ static inline void ftrace_reset_array_ops(struct trace_array *tr) { }
> > static inline void ftrace_init_tracefs(struct trace_array *tr, struct dentry *d) { }
> > static inline void ftrace_init_tracefs_toplevel(struct trace_array *tr, struct dentry *d) { }
> > static inline int init_function_trace(void) { return 0; }
> > +static inline void ftrace_pid_reset(struct trace_array *tr, bool update) { }
> > /* ftace_func_t type is not defined, use macro instead of static inline */
> > #define ftrace_init_array_ops(tr, func) do { } while (0)
> > #endif /* CONFIG_FUNCTION_TRACER */
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists