linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] userfaultfd: non-cooperative: fix fork use after free

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: <20170920183041.GA29542@kroah.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Sep 2017 20:30:41 +0200
From:   Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:     Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...tuozzo.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@...hat.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, syzkaller@...glegroups.com,
        stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] userfaultfd: non-cooperative: fix fork use after free

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 08:04:13PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> When reading the event from the uffd, we put it on a temporary
> fork_event list to detect if we can still access it after releasing
> and retaking the event_wqh.lock.
> 
> If fork aborts and removes the event from the fork_event all is fine
> as long as we're still in the userfault read context and fork_event
> head is still alive.
> 
> We've to put the event allocated in the fork kernel stack, back from
> fork_event list-head to the event_wqh head, before returning from
> userfaultfd_ctx_read, because the fork_event head lifetime is limited
> to the userfaultfd_ctx_read stack lifetime.
> 
> Forgetting to move the event back to its event_wqh place then results
> in __remove_wait_queue(&ctx->event_wqh, &ewq->wq); in
> userfaultfd_event_wait_completion to remove it from a head that has
> been already freed from the reader stack.
> 
> This could only happen if resolve_userfault_fork failed (for example
> if there are no file descriptors available to allocate the fork
> uffd). If it succeeded it was put back correctly.
> 
> Furthermore, after find_userfault_evt receives a fork event, the
> forked userfault context in fork_nctx and
> uwq->msg.arg.reserved.reserved1 can be released by the fork thread as
> soon as the event_wqh.lock is released. Taking a reference on the
> fork_nctx before dropping the lock prevents an use after free in
> resolve_userfault_fork().
> 
> If the fork side aborted and it already released everything, we still
> try to succeed resolve_userfault_fork(), if possible.
> 
> Reported-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
> Signed-off-by: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
> ---
>  fs/userfaultfd.c | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 56 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

<formletter>

This is not the correct way to submit patches for inclusion in the
stable kernel tree.  Please read:
    https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
for how to do this properly.

</formletter>