linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drm: Lock pointer access in drm_master

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Fri, 11 Jun 2021 11:10:55 +0800
From:   Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi <desmondcheongzx@...il.com>
To:     Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@...il.com>,
        Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
        Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
        Dave Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        ML dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        "Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        skhan@...uxfoundation.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm: Lock pointer access in drm_master_release()

On 11/6/21 1:49 am, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 at 11:10, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 05:21:19PM +0800, Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi wrote:
>>> This patch eliminates the following smatch warning:
>>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_auth.c:320 drm_master_release() warn: unlocked access 'master' (line 318) expected lock '&dev->master_mutex'
>>>
>>> The 'file_priv->master' field should be protected by the mutex lock to
>>> '&dev->master_mutex'. This is because other processes can concurrently
>>> modify this field and free the current 'file_priv->master'
>>> pointer. This could result in a use-after-free error when 'master' is
>>> dereferenced in subsequent function calls to
>>> 'drm_legacy_lock_master_cleanup()' or to 'drm_lease_revoke()'.
>>>
>>> An example of a scenario that would produce this error can be seen
>>> from a similar bug in 'drm_getunique()' that was reported by Syzbot:
>>> https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=148d2f1dfac64af52ffd27b661981a540724f803
>>>
>>> In the Syzbot report, another process concurrently acquired the
>>> device's master mutex in 'drm_setmaster_ioctl()', then overwrote
>>> 'fpriv->master' in 'drm_new_set_master()'. The old value of
>>> 'fpriv->master' was subsequently freed before the mutex was unlocked.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi <desmondcheongzx@...il.com>
>>
>> Thanks a lot. I've done an audit of this code, and I found another
>> potential problem in drm_is_current_master. The callers from drm_auth.c
>> hold the dev->master_mutex, but all the external ones dont. I think we
>> need to split this into a _locked function for use within drm_auth.c, and
>> the exported one needs to grab the dev->master_mutex while it's checking
>> master status. Ofc there will still be races, those are ok, but right now
>> we run the risk of use-after free problems in drm_lease_owner.
>>
> Note that some code does acquire the mutex via
> drm_master_internal_acquire - so we should be careful.
> As mentioned elsewhere - having a _locked version of
> drm_is_current_master sounds good.
> 
> Might as well throw a lockdep_assert_held_once in there just in case :-P
> 
> Happy to help review the follow-up patches.
> -Emil
> 

Thanks for the advice, Emil!

I did a preliminary check on the code that calls 
drm_master_internal_acquire in drm_client_modeset.c and drm_fb_helper.c, 
and it doesn't seem like they eventually call drm_is_current_master. So 
we should be good on that front.

lockdep_assert_held_once sounds good :)

Best wishes,
Desmond