linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 clocksource 3/5] clocksource: Check per-CPU clock synchronization when marked unstable

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: <20210411164612.GZ4510@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Date:   Sun, 11 Apr 2021 09:46:12 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, john.stultz@...aro.org,
        sboyd@...nel.org, corbet@....net, Mark.Rutland@....com,
        maz@...nel.org, kernel-team@...com, neeraju@...eaurora.org,
        ak@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 clocksource 3/5] clocksource: Check per-CPU clock
 synchronization when marked unstable

On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 12:33:44PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 10 2021 at 17:20, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 11:00:25AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> > +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!cs))
> >> > +		return;
> >> > +	pr_warn("Checking clocksource %s synchronization from CPU %d.\n",
> >> > +		cs->name, smp_processor_id());
> >> > +	cpumask_clear(&cpus_ahead);
> >> > +	cpumask_clear(&cpus_behind);
> >> > +	csnow_begin = cs->read(cs);
> >> 
> >> So this is invoked via work and the actual clocksource change is done
> >> via work too. Once the clocksource is not longer actively used for
> >> timekeeping it can go away. What's guaranteeing that this runs prior to
> >> the clocksource change and 'cs' is valid throughout this function?
> >
> > From what I can see, cs->read() doesn't care whether or not the
> > clocksource has been marked unstable.  So it should be OK to call
> > cs->read() before, during, or after the call to __clocksource_unstable().
> >
> > Also, this is only done on clocksources marked CLOCK_SOURCE_VERIFY_PERCPU,
> > so any clocksource that did not like cs->read() being invoked during
> > or after the call to __clocksource_unstable() should leave off the
> > CLOCK_SOURCE_VERIFY_PERCPU bit.
> >
> > Or did I take a wrong turn somewhere in the pointers to functions?
> 
> Right. cs->read() does not care, but what guarantees that cs is valid
> and not freed yet? It's not an issue with TSC and KVMCLOCK, but
> conceptually the following is possible:
> 
> watchdog()   
>   queue_work(synccheck);
>   queue_work(clocksource_change);
> 
> work:                                   
>   synccheck()                             clocksource_change()
>     preemption                            ...
>                                           ...
>                                           some_other_code():
>                                              unregister_clocksource(cs)
>                                              free(cs)
>   cs->read()   <- UAF

Got it, with the ingenic_tcu_init() function being case in point.
It invokes clcoksource_unregister() shortly followed by clk_put(), which,
if I found the correct clk_put(), can kfree() it.

Thank you!

> >> > +	queue_work(system_highpri_wq, &clocksource_verify_work);
> >> 
> >> This does not guarantee anything. So why does this need an extra work
> >> function which is scheduled seperately?
> >
> > Because I was concerned about doing smp_call_function() while holding
> > watchdog_lock, which is also acquired elsewhere using spin_lock_irqsave().
> > And it still looks like on x86 that spin_lock_irqsave() spins with irqs
> > disabled, which could result in deadlock.  The smp_call_function_single()
> > would wait for the target CPU to enable interrupts, which would not
> > happen until after the smp_call_function_single() returned due to its
> > caller holding watchdog_lock.
> >
> > Or is there something that I am missing that prevents this deadlock
> > from occurring?
> 
> The unstable mechanism is:
> 
> watchdog()
>   __clocksource_unstable()
>     schedule_work(&watchdog_work);
> 
> watchdog_work()
>   kthread_run(clocksource_watchdog_thread);
> 
> cs_watchdog_thread()
>   mutex_lock(&clocksource_mutex);
>   if (__clocksource_watchdog_kthread())
> 	clocksource_select();
>   mutex_unlock(&clocksource_mutex);
> 
> So what prevents you from doing that right in watchdog_work() or even in
> cs_watchdog_thread() properly ordered against the actual clocksource
> switch?
> 
> Hmm?

My own confusion, apparently.  :-/

So I need to is inline clocksource_verify_percpu_wq()
into clocksource_verify_percpu() and then move the call to
clocksource_verify_percpu() to __clocksource_watchdog_kthread(), right
before the existing call to list_del_init().  Will do!

							Thanx, Paul