linux-kernel - [PATCH 3.16 047/178] 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: <lsq.1500213406.570293087@decadent.org.uk>
Date:   Sun, 16 Jul 2017 14:56:46 +0100
From:   Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
CC:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, "Dmitry Vyukov" <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        bigeasy@...utronix.de, bristot@...hat.com,
        mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        dvhart@...radead.org, xlpang@...hat.com, jdesfossez@...icios.com,
        "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Darren Hart" <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>, juri.lelli@....com
Subject: [PATCH 3.16 047/178] futex: Fix potential use-after-free in
 FUTEX_REQUEUE_PI

3.16.46-rc1 review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

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

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

commit c236c8e95a3d395b0494e7108f0d41cf36ec107c upstream.

While working on the futex code, I stumbled over this potential
use-after-free scenario. Dmitry triggered it later with syzkaller.

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().

Reported-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
Reviewed-by: Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: juri.lelli@....com
Cc: bigeasy@...utronix.de
Cc: xlpang@...hat.com
Cc: rostedt@...dmis.org
Cc: mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com
Cc: jdesfossez@...icios.com
Cc: dvhart@...radead.org
Cc: bristot@...hat.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170304093558.801744246@infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
---
 kernel/futex.c | 20 +++++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

--- a/kernel/futex.c
+++ b/kernel/futex.c
@@ -2578,7 +2578,6 @@ static int futex_wait_requeue_pi(u32 __u
 {
 	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;
@@ -2670,6 +2669,8 @@ static int futex_wait_requeue_pi(u32 __u
 			spin_unlock(q.lock_ptr);
 		}
 	} else {
+		struct rt_mutex *pi_mutex;
+
 		/*
 		 * We have been woken up by futex_unlock_pi(), a timeout, or a
 		 * signal.  futex_unlock_pi() will not destroy the lock_ptr nor
@@ -2693,18 +2694,19 @@ static int futex_wait_requeue_pi(u32 __u
 		if (res)
 			ret = (res < 0) ? res : 0;
 
+		/*
+		 * If fixup_pi_state_owner() faulted and was unable to handle
+		 * the fault, unlock the rt_mutex and return the fault to
+		 * userspace.
+		 */
+		if (ret && rt_mutex_owner(pi_mutex) == current)
+			rt_mutex_unlock(pi_mutex);
+
 		/* Unqueue and drop the lock. */
 		unqueue_me_pi(&q);
 	}
 
-	/*
-	 * If fixup_pi_state_owner() faulted and was unable to handle the
-	 * fault, unlock the rt_mutex and return the fault to userspace.
-	 */
-	if (ret == -EFAULT) {
-		if (pi_mutex && rt_mutex_owner(pi_mutex) == current)
-			rt_mutex_unlock(pi_mutex);
-	} else if (ret == -EINTR) {
+	if (ret == -EINTR) {
 		/*
 		 * We've already been requeued, but cannot restart by calling
 		 * futex_lock_pi() directly. We could restart this syscall, but