linux-kernel - Re: uprobes/perf: KASAN: use-after-free in uprobe_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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20180409104010.GA22993@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 9 Apr 2018 12:40:10 +0200
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Prashant Bhole <bhole_prashant_q7@....ntt.co.jp>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: uprobes/perf: KASAN: use-after-free in uprobe_perf_close

On 04/09, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 06:49:10PM +0900, Prashant Bhole wrote:
> > Sorry for late reply. I tried these changes. It didn't fix the problem. With
>
> He, sorry for completely forgetting about this one :/

me too, sorry Prashant,

> > these changes, the use-after-free access of task_struct occurs at
> > _free_event() for the last remaining event.

Heh, I didn't even try to compile the "patch" I sent, I am not surprised it is
not correct. But unless I forget again, I'll try to make the working version.

> > In your changes, I tried keeping get/put_task_struct() in
> > perf_alloc_context()/put_ctx() intact and The problem did not occur. Change
> > are mentioned below.
>
> Yes, I think you're right in that this is the cleanest solution; it add
> reference counting to the exact pointer we're using.

OK, agreed, lets make the minimal fix for now.

But I still think that we should (try to) remove put_task_struct() from put_ctx().

Quite possibly I missed something, but I think it only adds some confusion. Once
again, even if ctx can't go away you can't use ctx->task without TASK_TOMBSTONE
check, exactly because this task can exit. So why perf_event_context should add
another reference?

Oleg.