[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e8fa4afb-39df-548c-e6f0-4c91cd3c259c@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 16:02:20 +0800
From: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@...wei.com>
To: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Xu Qiang <xuqiang36@...wei.com>,
Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] workqueue: fix UAF in pwq_unbound_release_workfn()
Hi,
On 2021/7/13 13:56, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 1:12 AM Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
>> Hello, Yang.
>>
>>> +static void free_pwq(struct pool_workqueue *pwq)
>>> +{
>>> + if (!pwq || --pwq->refcnt)
>>> + return;
>>> +
>>> + put_unbound_pool(pwq->pool);
>>> + kmem_cache_free(pwq_cache, pwq);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static void free_wqattrs_ctx(struct apply_wqattrs_ctx *ctx)
>>> +{
>>> + int node;
>>> +
>>> + if (!ctx)
>>> + return;
>>> +
>>> + for_each_node(node)
>>> + free_pwq(ctx->pwq_tbl[node]);
>>> + free_pwq(ctx->dfl_pwq);
>>> +
>>> + free_workqueue_attrs(ctx->attrs);
>>> +
>>> + kfree(ctx);
>>> +}
>> It bothers me that we're partially replicating the free path including pwq
>> refcnting.
> The replicating code can be reduced by merging
> apply_wqattrs_cleanup() into apply_wqattrs_commit().
>
>> Does something like the following work?
> It works since it has a flush_scheduled_work() in
> alloc_and_link_pwqs(). But I don't think it works for
> workqueue_apply_unbound_cpumask() when apply_wqattrs_commit()
> is not called.
>
> If we want to reuse the current apply_wqattrs_cleanup(), I would prefer
> something like this: (untested)
>
> @@ -3680,15 +3676,21 @@ static void pwq_unbound_release_workfn(struct
> work_struct *work)
> unbound_release_work);
> struct workqueue_struct *wq = pwq->wq;
> struct worker_pool *pool = pwq->pool;
> - bool is_last;
> + bool is_last = false;
>
> - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!(wq->flags & WQ_UNBOUND)))
> - return;
> + /*
> + * when @pwq is not linked, it doesn't hold any reference to the
> + * @wq, and @wq is invalid to access.
> + */
> + if (!list_empty(&pwq->pwqs_node)) {
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!(wq->flags & WQ_UNBOUND)))
> + return;
>
> - mutex_lock(&wq->mutex);
> - list_del_rcu(&pwq->pwqs_node);
> - is_last = list_empty(&wq->pwqs);
> - mutex_unlock(&wq->mutex);
> + mutex_lock(&wq->mutex);
> + list_del_rcu(&pwq->pwqs_node);
> + is_last = list_empty(&wq->pwqs);
> + mutex_unlock(&wq->mutex);
> + }
>
> mutex_lock(&wq_pool_mutex);
> put_unbound_pool(pool);
I test the code with my testcase, it works. I can send a v3 about this.
Thanks,
Yang
>
>> diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
>> index 104e3ef04e33..0c0ab363edeb 100644
>> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
>> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
>> @@ -3693,7 +3693,7 @@ static void pwq_unbound_release_workfn(struct work_struct *work)
>> * If we're the last pwq going away, @wq is already dead and no one
>> * is gonna access it anymore. Schedule RCU free.
>> */
>> - if (is_last) {
>> + if (is_last && !list_empty(&wq->list)) {
>> wq_unregister_lockdep(wq);
>> call_rcu(&wq->rcu, rcu_free_wq);
>> }
>> @@ -4199,6 +4199,10 @@ static int alloc_and_link_pwqs(struct workqueue_struct *wq)
>> }
>> put_online_cpus();
>>
>> + if (ret) {
>> + flush_scheduled_work();
>> + }
>> +
>> return ret;
>> }
>>
>> --
>> tejun
> .
Powered by blists - more mailing lists