linux-kernel - Re: BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request in kernel_get

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: <CACT4Y+bxjLaK-QG+7WQ0S-N4_1-2-gtDU=ytUDd5fUOjsxEjdA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 7 Apr 2020 10:27:15 +0200
From:   Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        syzbot <syzbot+693dc11fcb53120b5559@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        Brian Geffon <bgeffon@...gle.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request in kernel_get_mempolicy

On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 4:43 AM Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 07:15:34PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 21:55:35 -0400 Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 06:39:41PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 20:47:45 -0400 Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >From 23800bff6fa346a4e9b3806dc0cfeb74498df757 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > > > From: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
> > > > > Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2020 20:40:13 -0400
> > > > > Subject: [PATCH] mm/mempolicy: Allow lookup_node() to handle fatal signal
> > > > >
> > > > > lookup_node() uses gup to pin the page and get node information.  It
> > > > > checks against ret>=0 assuming the page will be filled in.  However
> > > > > it's also possible that gup will return zero, for example, when the
> > > > > thread is quickly killed with a fatal signal.  Teach lookup_node() to
> > > > > gracefully return an error -EFAULT if it happens.
> > > > >
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > --- a/mm/mempolicy.c
> > > > > +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
> > > > > @@ -902,7 +902,10 @@ static int lookup_node(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr)
> > > > >
> > > > >         int locked = 1;
> > > > >         err = get_user_pages_locked(addr & PAGE_MASK, 1, 0, &p, &locked);
> > > > > -       if (err >= 0) {
> > > > > +       if (err == 0) {
> > > > > +               /* E.g. GUP interupted by fatal signal */
> > > > > +               err = -EFAULT;
> > > > > +       } else if (err > 0) {
> > > > >                 err = page_to_nid(p);
> > > > >                 put_page(p);
> > > > >         }
> > > >
> > > > Doh.  Thanks.
> > > >
> > > > Should it have been -EINTR?
> > >
> > > It looks ok to me too.  I was returning -EFAULT to follow the same
> > > value as get_vaddr_frames() (which is the other caller of
> > > get_user_pages_locked()).  So far the only path that I found can
> > > trigger this is when there's a fatal signal pending right after the
> > > gup.  If so, the userspace won't have a chance to see the -EINTR (or
> > > whatever we return) anyways.
> >
> > Yup.  I guess we're a victim of get_user_pages()'s screwy return value
> > conventions - the caller cannot distinguish between invalid-addr and
> > fatal-signal.
>
> Indeed.
>
> >
> > Which makes one wonder why lookup_node() ever worked.  What happens if
> > get_mempolicy(MPOL_F_NODE) is passed a wild userspace address?
> >
>
> I'm not familiar with mempolicy at all, but do you mean MPOL_F_NODE
> with MPOL_F_ADDR?  Asked since iiuc if only MPOL_F_NODE is specified,
> the kernel should not use the userspace addr at all (which seems to be
> the thing we do now).  get_mempolicy(MPOL_F_NODE|MPOL_F_ADDR) seems to
> return -EFAULT as expected, though I agree maybe it would still be
> nicer to differentiate the two cases.

Am I reading this correctly that we put an initialized struct page* in
this case? If so, with stack spraying this looks like an "interesting"
bug.