linux-kernel - Re: apparmor: WARNING: suspicious RCU usage

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 21 Sep 2021 14:23:19 -0700
From:   John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: apparmor: WARNING: suspicious RCU usage

On 9/21/21 1:32 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> 
> Running with CONFIG_PROVE_RCU_LIST triggers the following splat:
> 
> [    6.805926] =============================
> [    6.806848] WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
> [    6.807738] 5.15.0-rc2+ #24 Tainted: G            E    
> [    6.808860] -----------------------------
> [    6.809734] security/apparmor/include/lib.h:191 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!!
> [    6.811508] 
>                other info that might help us debug this:
> 
> [    6.811516] 
>                rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1
> [    6.811527] 2 locks held by apparmor_parser/1897:
> [    6.811530]  #0: ffff88885f139450 (sb_writers#7){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: ksys_write+0x68/0xe0
> [    6.816110]  #1: ffff8881000578a0 (&ns->lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: aa_replace_profiles+0x16d/0x11e0
> [    6.817418] 
>                stack backtrace:
> [    6.818086] CPU: 38 PID: 1897 Comm: apparmor_parser Tainted: G            E     5.15.0-rc2+ #24
> [    6.819359] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.14.0-2 04/01/2014
> [    6.820536] Call Trace:
> [    6.820918]  dump_stack_lvl+0x57/0x72
> [    6.821499]  __lookupn_profile+0x193/0x1a0
> [    6.822461]  aa_replace_profiles+0x395/0x11e0
> [    6.823448]  policy_update+0x13f/0x240
> [    6.824326]  profile_replace+0xb1/0x120
> [    6.825213]  vfs_write+0xe4/0x3b0
> [    6.826027]  ksys_write+0x68/0xe0
> [    6.826576]  do_syscall_64+0x3b/0x90
> [    6.827099]  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
> 
> which is pretty obvious because aa_replace_profile() invokes:
> 
>     __lookup_replace()
>       __lookup_profile()
>         __strn_find_child()
>           __policy_strn_find()
>             list_for_each_entry_rcu()  <- Splat
> 
> The code is "correct" as this is the writer side and holding ns->lock,
> but it's incorrect to use list_for_each_entry_rcu() without being in a
> read side critical section unless it is properly annotated.
> 
> Same problem in the same function vs. __lookup_parent() and there are
> more issues of that sort, e.g. vs. __lookup_profile() in
> aa_remove_profiles().
> 
thanks Thomas, I look into it