linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] mm, oom: fix use-after-free in oom_kill

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: <CALvZod4h7ouNE7p2ouTix9uK3XLUvP6UYNDPEkR-y5PZRJRDnw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 20 Jan 2019 12:23:06 -0800
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm, oom: fix use-after-free in oom_kill_process

On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 7:35 PM Tetsuo Handa
<penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp> wrote:
>
> On 2019/01/19 9:50, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > On looking further it seems like the process selected to be oom-killed
> > has exited even before reaching read_lock(&tasklist_lock) in
> > oom_kill_process(). More specifically the tsk->usage is 1 which is due
> > to get_task_struct() in oom_evaluate_task() and the put_task_struct
> > within for_each_thread() frees the tsk and for_each_thread() tries to
> > access the tsk. The easiest fix is to do get/put across the
> > for_each_thread() on the selected task.
>
> Good catch. p->usage can become 1 while printk()ing a lot at dump_header().
>
> > @@ -981,6 +981,13 @@ static void oom_kill_process(struct oom_control *oc, const char *message)
> >        * still freeing memory.
> >        */
> >       read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> > +
> > +     /*
> > +      * The task 'p' might have already exited before reaching here. The
> > +      * put_task_struct() will free task_struct 'p' while the loop still try
> > +      * to access the field of 'p', so, get an extra reference.
> > +      */
> > +     get_task_struct(p);
> >       for_each_thread(p, t) {
> >               list_for_each_entry(child, &t->children, sibling) {
> >                       unsigned int child_points;
> > @@ -1000,6 +1007,7 @@ static void oom_kill_process(struct oom_control *oc, const char *message)
> >                       }
> >               }
> >       }
> > +     put_task_struct(p);
>
> Moving put_task_struct(p) to after read_unlock(&tasklist_lock) will reduce
> latency of a write_lock(&tasklist_lock) waiter.
>
> >       read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> >
> >       /*
> >
>
> By the way, p->usage is already 1 implies that p->mm == NULL due to already
> completed exit_mm(p). Then, process_shares_mm(child, p->mm) might fail to
> return true for some of children. Not critical but might lead to unnecessary
> oom_badness() calls for child selection. Maybe we want to use same logic
> __oom_kill_process() uses (i.e. bail out if find_task_lock_mm(p) failed)?

Thanks for the review. I am thinking of removing the whole children
selection heuristic for now.

Shakeel