| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAOQ4uxjYJTG3p2ALXAWnAY+6Kmoi_L0=Z42okT6R+ovzQ7dQoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 07:51:47 +0300
From: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>,
syzbot <syzbot+c18f2f6a7b08c51e3025@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [syzbot] possible deadlock in ovl_maybe_copy_up
On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 5:32 AM Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2021-06-18 at 12:01 +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
> > On Sun, 4 Apr 2021 11:10:48 +0300 Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > >On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 10:18 PM syzbot wrote:
> > >>
> > >> syzbot has found a reproducer for the following issue on:
> > >>
> > >> HEAD commit: 454c576c Add linux-next specific files for 20210401
> > >> git tree: linux-next
> > >> console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=1616e07ed00000
> > >> kernel config: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=920cc274cae812a5
> > >> dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=c18f2f6a7b08c51e3025
> > >> syz repro: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.syz?x=13da365ed00000
> > >> C reproducer: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.c?x=13ca9d16d00000
> > >>
> > >> IMPORTANT: if you fix the issue, please add the following tag to the commit:
> > >> Reported-by: syzbot+c18f2f6a7b08c51e3025@...kaller.appspotmail.com
> > >>
> > >> ======================================================
> > >> WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> > >> 5.12.0-rc5-next-20210401-syzkaller #0 Not tainted
> > >> ------------------------------------------------------
> > >> syz-executor144/9166 is trying to acquire lock:
> > >> ffff888144cf0460 (sb_writers#5){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: ovl_maybe_copy_up+0x11f/0x190 fs/overlayfs/copy_up.c:995
> > >>
> > >> but task is already holding lock:
> > >> ffff8880256d42c0 (&iint->mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: process_measurement+0x3a8/0x17e0 security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c:253
> > >>
> > >> which lock already depends on the new lock.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> > >>
> > >> -> #1 (&iint->mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
> > >> __mutex_lock_common kernel/locking/mutex.c:949 [inline]
> > >> __mutex_lock+0x139/0x1120 kernel/locking/mutex.c:1096
> > >> process_measurement+0x3a8/0x17e0 security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c:253
> > >> ima_file_check+0xb9/0x100 security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c:499
> > >> do_open fs/namei.c:3361 [inline]
> > >> path_openat+0x15b5/0x27e0 fs/namei.c:3492
> > >> do_filp_open+0x17e/0x3c0 fs/namei.c:3519
> > >> do_sys_openat2+0x16d/0x420 fs/open.c:1187
> > >> do_sys_open fs/open.c:1203 [inline]
> > >> __do_sys_open fs/open.c:1211 [inline]
> > >> __se_sys_open fs/open.c:1207 [inline]
> > >> __x64_sys_open+0x119/0x1c0 fs/open.c:1207
> > >> do_syscall_64+0x2d/0x70 arch/x86/entry/common.c:46
> > >> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
> > >>
> > >> -> #0 (sb_writers#5){.+.+}-{0:0}:
> > >> check_prev_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2938 [inline]
> > >> check_prevs_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3061 [inline]
> > >> validate_chain kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3676 [inline]
> > >> __lock_acquire+0x2a17/0x5230 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:4902
> > >> lock_acquire kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5512 [inline]
> > >> lock_acquire+0x1ab/0x740 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5477
> > >> percpu_down_read include/linux/percpu-rwsem.h:51 [inline]
> > >> __sb_start_write include/linux/fs.h:1758 [inline]
> > >> sb_start_write include/linux/fs.h:1828 [inline]
> > >> mnt_want_write+0x6e/0x3e0 fs/namespace.c:375
> > >> ovl_maybe_copy_up+0x11f/0x190 fs/overlayfs/copy_up.c:995
> > >> ovl_open+0xba/0x270 fs/overlayfs/file.c:149
> > >> do_dentry_open+0x4b9/0x11b0 fs/open.c:826
> > >> vfs_open fs/open.c:940 [inline]
> > >> dentry_open+0x132/0x1d0 fs/open.c:956
> > >> ima_calc_file_hash+0x2d2/0x4b0 security/integrity/ima/ima_crypto.c:557
> > >> ima_collect_measurement+0x4ca/0x570 security/integrity/ima/ima_api.c:252
> > >> process_measurement+0xd1c/0x17e0 security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c:330
> > >> ima_file_check+0xb9/0x100 security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c:499
> > >> do_open fs/namei.c:3361 [inline]
> > >> path_openat+0x15b5/0x27e0 fs/namei.c:3492
> > >> do_filp_open+0x17e/0x3c0 fs/namei.c:3519
> > >> do_sys_openat2+0x16d/0x420 fs/open.c:1187
> > >> do_sys_open fs/open.c:1203 [inline]
> > >> __do_sys_open fs/open.c:1211 [inline]
> > >> __se_sys_open fs/open.c:1207 [inline]
> > >> __x64_sys_open+0x119/0x1c0 fs/open.c:1207
> > >> do_syscall_64+0x2d/0x70 arch/x86/entry/common.c:46
> > >> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
> > >>
> > >> other info that might help us debug this:
> > >>
> > >> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> > >>
> > >> CPU0 CPU1
> > >> ---- ----
> > >> lock(&iint->mutex);
> > >> lock(sb_writers#5);
> > >> lock(&iint->mutex);
> > >> lock(sb_writers#5);
> > >>
> > >> *** DEADLOCK ***
> > >>
> > >> 1 lock held by syz-executor144/9166:
> > >> #0: ffff8880256d42c0 (&iint->mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: process_measurement+0x3a8/0x17e0 security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c:253
> > >>
> >
> > It is reported again.
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/00000000000067d24205c4d0e599@google.com/
> > >
> > >It's a false positive lockdep warning due to missing annotation of
> > >stacking layer on iint->mutex in IMA code.
> >
> > Add it by copying what's created for ovl, see below.
> > >
> > >To fix it properly, iint->mutex, which can be taken in any of the
> > >stacking fs layers, should be annotated with stacking depth like
> > >ovl_lockdep_annotate_inode_mutex_key()
> > >
> > >I think it's the same root cause as:
> > >https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=18a1619cceea30ed45af
> > >https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=ae82084b07d0297e566b
> > >
> > >I think both of the above were marked "fixed" by a paper over.
> > >The latter was marked "fixed" by "ovl: detect overlapping layers"
> > >but if you look at the repro, the fact that 'workdir' overlaps with
> > >'lowerdir' has nothing to do with the lockdep warning, so said
> > >"fix" just papered over the IMA lockdep warning.
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >Amir.
> >
> > +++ x/security/integrity/iint.c
> > @@ -85,6 +85,45 @@ static void iint_free(struct integrity_i
> > kmem_cache_free(iint_cache, iint);
> > }
> >
> > +/*
> > + * a copy from ovl_lockdep_annotate_inode_mutex_key() in a bit to fix
> > +
> > + Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> > +
> > + CPU0 CPU1
> > + ---- ----
> > + lock(&iint->mutex);
> > + lock(sb_writers#5);
> > + lock(&iint->mutex);
> > + lock(sb_writers#5);
> > +
> > + *** DEADLOCK ***
> > +
> > +It's a false positive lockdep warning due to missing annotation of
> > +stacking layer on iint->mutex in IMA code. [1]
> > +
> > +[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-unionfs/CAOQ4uxjk4XYuwz5HCmN-Ge=Ld=tM1f7ZxVrd5U1AC2Wisc9MTA@mail.gmail.com/
> > +*/
> > +static void iint_annotate_mutex_key(struct integrity_iint_cache *iint,
> > + struct inode *inode)
> > +{
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
> > + static struct lock_class_key
> > + iint_mutex_key[FILESYSTEM_MAX_STACK_DEPTH],
> > + iint_mutex_dir_key[FILESYSTEM_MAX_STACK_DEPTH];
> > +
> > + int depth = inode->i_sb->s_stack_depth - 1;
> > +
> > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(depth < 0 || depth >= FILESYSTEM_MAX_STACK_DEPTH))
> > + depth = 0;
> > +
> > + if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode))
> > + lockdep_set_class(&iint->mutex, &iint_mutex_dir_key[depth]);
> > + else
> > + lockdep_set_class(&iint->mutex, &iint_mutex_key[depth]);
> > +#endif
> > +}
>
> The iint cache is only for regular files.
>
> > +
> > /**
> > * integrity_inode_get - find or allocate an iint associated with an inode
> > * @inode: pointer to the inode
> > @@ -113,6 +152,7 @@ struct integrity_iint_cache *integrity_i
> > iint = kmem_cache_alloc(iint_cache, GFP_NOFS);
> > if (!iint)
> > return NULL;
> > + iint_annotate_mutex_key(iint, inode);
> >
> > write_lock(&integrity_iint_lock);
>
> Should annotating the iint be limited to files on overlay filesystems?
>
Not to overlay files specifically but to files on stacked fs,
i.e. (inode->i_sb->s_stack_depth > 0)
Assuming that this patch is tested(?), how come it did not hit the
WARN_ON_ONCE(depth < 0... above?
Thanks,
Amir.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists