[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKFNMon6dUZ1-S8Pi+8qJivXt9GArxVLrcH-KPEjxXU3ZAzS8A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 20:09:31 +0900
From: Ryusuke Konishi <konishi.ryusuke@...il.com>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
mm-commits@...r.kernel.org, Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 136/147] nilfs2: use refcount_dec_and_lock() to fix
potential UAF
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 7:35 PM Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> > From: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>
> > Subject: nilfs2: use refcount_dec_and_lock() to fix potential UAF
> >
> > When the refcount is decreased to 0, the resource reclamation branch is
> > entered. Before CPU0 reaches the race point (1), CPU1 may obtain the
> > spinlock and traverse the rbtree to find 'root', see nilfs_lookup_root().
> > Although CPU1 will call refcount_inc() to increase the refcount, it is
> > obviously too late. CPU0 will release 'root' directly, CPU1 then accesses
> > 'root' and triggers UAF.
> >
> > Use refcount_dec_and_lock() to ensure that both the operations of decrease
> > refcount to 0 and link deletion are lock protected eliminates this risk.
> >
> > CPU0 CPU1
> > nilfs_put_root():
> > <-------- (1)
> > spin_lock(&nilfs->ns_cptree_lock);
> > rb_erase(&root->rb_node, &nilfs->ns_cptree);
> > spin_unlock(&nilfs->ns_cptree_lock);
> >
> > kfree(root);
> > <-------- use-after-free
>
> > There is no reproduction program, and the above is only theoretical
> > analysis.
>
> Ok, so we have a theoretical bug, and fix already on its way to
> stable. But ... is it correct?
>
> > +++ a/fs/nilfs2/the_nilfs.c
> > @@ -792,14 +792,13 @@ nilfs_find_or_create_root(struct the_nil
> >
> > void nilfs_put_root(struct nilfs_root *root)
> > {
> > - if (refcount_dec_and_test(&root->count)) {
> > - struct the_nilfs *nilfs = root->nilfs;
> > + struct the_nilfs *nilfs = root->nilfs;
> >
> > - nilfs_sysfs_delete_snapshot_group(root);
> > -
> > - spin_lock(&nilfs->ns_cptree_lock);
> > + if (refcount_dec_and_lock(&root->count, &nilfs->ns_cptree_lock)) {
> > rb_erase(&root->rb_node, &nilfs->ns_cptree);
> > spin_unlock(&nilfs->ns_cptree_lock);
> > +
> > + nilfs_sysfs_delete_snapshot_group(root);
> > iput(root->ifile);
> >
> > kfree(root);
>
> spin_lock() is deleted, but spin_unlock() is not affected. This means
> unbalanced locking, right?
It's okay. spin_lock() is integrated into refcount_dec_and_lock(), which was
originally refcount_dec_and_test().
Thanks,
Ryusuke Konishi
>
> Best regards,
> Pavel
> --
> DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
> HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists