linux-kernel - Re: arm64/v4.16-rc1: KASAN: use-after-free Read in finish_task

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: <20180216183320.rw7trsakkdtzv5vd@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
Date:   Fri, 16 Feb 2018 18:33:20 +0000
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: arm64/v4.16-rc1: KASAN: use-after-free Read in finish_task_switch

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 05:17:57PM +0000, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> ----- On Feb 16, 2018, at 11:53 AM, Mark Rutland mark.rutland@....com wrote:
> > I suspect we have a bogus mmdrop or mmput elsewhere, and do_exit() and
> > finish_task_switch() aren't to blame.
> 
> Currently reviewing: fs/proc/base.c: __set_oom_adj()
> 
>         /*
>          * Make sure we will check other processes sharing the mm if this is
>          * not vfrok which wants its own oom_score_adj.
>          * pin the mm so it doesn't go away and get reused after task_unlock
>          */
>         if (!task->vfork_done) {
>                 struct task_struct *p = find_lock_task_mm(task);
> 
>                 if (p) {
>                         if (atomic_read(&p->mm->mm_users) > 1) {
>                                 mm = p->mm;
>                                 mmgrab(mm);
>                         }
>                         task_unlock(p);
>                 }
>         }
> 
> Considering that mmput() done by exit_mm() is done outside of the
> task_lock critical section, I wonder how the mm_users load is
> synchronized ?

That looks suspicious, but I don't think it can result in this
particular problem.

In find_lock_task_mm() we get the task lock, and check mm != NULL, which
means that mm->mm_count >= 1 (thanks to the implicit reference
context_switch()+finish_task_switch() manage). While we hold the task
lock, task->mm can't change beneath our feet, and hence that reference
can't be dropped by finish_task_switch().

Thus, immediately after the mmgrab(), we know mm->mm_count >= 2. That
shouldn't drop below 1 until the subsequent mmdrop(), even after we drop
the task lock, unless there's a misplaced mmdrop() elsewhere. Locally,
mmgrab() and mmdrop() are balanced.

However, if mm_users can be incremented behind our back, we might skip
updating the oom adjustments for other users of the mm.

Thanks,
Mark.