| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2021 01:09:22 +0200
From: Alexey Gladkov <legion@...nel.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Rune Kleveland <rune.kleveland@...omedia.dk>,
Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>,
Jordan Glover <Golden_Miller83@...tonmail.ch>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [CFT][PATCH] ucounts: Fix signal ucount refcounting
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 05:10:58PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> In commit fda31c50292a ("signal: avoid double atomic counter
> increments for user accounting") Linus made a clever optimization to
> how rlimits and the struct user_struct. Unfortunately that
> optimization does not work in the obvious way when moved to nested
> rlimits. The problem is that the last decrement of the per user
> namespace per user sigpending counter might also be the last decrement
> of the sigpending counter in the parent user namespace as well. Which
> means that simply freeing the leaf ucount in __free_sigqueue is not
> enough.
>
> Maintain the optimization and handle the tricky cases by introducing
> inc_rlimit_get_ucounts and dec_rlimit_put_ucounts.
>
> By moving the entire optimization into functions that perform all of
> the work it becomes possible to ensure that every level is handled
> properly.
>
> I wish we had a single user across all of the threads whose rlimit
> could be charged so we did not need this complexity.
>
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> Fixes: d64696905554 ("Reimplement RLIMIT_SIGPENDING on top of ucounts")
> Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
> ---
>
> With a lot of help from Alex who found a way I could reproduce this
> I believe I have found the issue.
>
> Could people who are seeing this issue test and verify this solves the
> problem for them?
>
> include/linux/user_namespace.h | 2 ++
> kernel/signal.c | 25 +++++----------------
> kernel/ucount.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/user_namespace.h b/include/linux/user_namespace.h
> index eb70cabe6e7f..33a4240e6a6f 100644
> --- a/include/linux/user_namespace.h
> +++ b/include/linux/user_namespace.h
> @@ -127,6 +127,8 @@ static inline long get_ucounts_value(struct ucounts *ucounts, enum ucount_type t
>
> long inc_rlimit_ucounts(struct ucounts *ucounts, enum ucount_type type, long v);
> bool dec_rlimit_ucounts(struct ucounts *ucounts, enum ucount_type type, long v);
> +long inc_rlimit_get_ucounts(struct ucounts *ucounts, enum ucount_type type);
> +void dec_rlimit_put_ucounts(struct ucounts *ucounts, enum ucount_type type);
> bool is_ucounts_overlimit(struct ucounts *ucounts, enum ucount_type type, unsigned long max);
>
> static inline void set_rlimit_ucount_max(struct user_namespace *ns,
> diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c
> index a3229add4455..762de58c6e76 100644
> --- a/kernel/signal.c
> +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> @@ -425,22 +425,10 @@ __sigqueue_alloc(int sig, struct task_struct *t, gfp_t gfp_flags,
> */
> rcu_read_lock();
> ucounts = task_ucounts(t);
> - sigpending = inc_rlimit_ucounts(ucounts, UCOUNT_RLIMIT_SIGPENDING, 1);
> - switch (sigpending) {
> - case 1:
> - if (likely(get_ucounts(ucounts)))
> - break;
> - fallthrough;
> - case LONG_MAX:
> - /*
> - * we need to decrease the ucount in the userns tree on any
> - * failure to avoid counts leaking.
> - */
> - dec_rlimit_ucounts(ucounts, UCOUNT_RLIMIT_SIGPENDING, 1);
> - rcu_read_unlock();
> - return NULL;
> - }
> + sigpending = inc_rlimit_get_ucounts(ucounts, UCOUNT_RLIMIT_SIGPENDING);
> rcu_read_unlock();
> + if (sigpending == LONG_MAX)
> + return NULL;
>
> if (override_rlimit || likely(sigpending <= task_rlimit(t, RLIMIT_SIGPENDING))) {
> q = kmem_cache_alloc(sigqueue_cachep, gfp_flags);
> @@ -449,8 +437,7 @@ __sigqueue_alloc(int sig, struct task_struct *t, gfp_t gfp_flags,
> }
>
> if (unlikely(q == NULL)) {
> - if (dec_rlimit_ucounts(ucounts, UCOUNT_RLIMIT_SIGPENDING, 1))
> - put_ucounts(ucounts);
> + dec_rlimit_put_ucounts(ucounts, UCOUNT_RLIMIT_SIGPENDING);
> } else {
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&q->list);
> q->flags = sigqueue_flags;
> @@ -463,8 +450,8 @@ static void __sigqueue_free(struct sigqueue *q)
> {
> if (q->flags & SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC)
> return;
> - if (q->ucounts && dec_rlimit_ucounts(q->ucounts, UCOUNT_RLIMIT_SIGPENDING, 1)) {
> - put_ucounts(q->ucounts);
> + if (q->ucounts) {
> + dec_rlimit_put_ucounts(q->ucounts, UCOUNT_RLIMIT_SIGPENDING);
> q->ucounts = NULL;
> }
> kmem_cache_free(sigqueue_cachep, q);
> diff --git a/kernel/ucount.c b/kernel/ucount.c
> index 3b7e176cf7a2..687d77aa66bb 100644
> --- a/kernel/ucount.c
> +++ b/kernel/ucount.c
> @@ -285,6 +285,47 @@ bool dec_rlimit_ucounts(struct ucounts *ucounts, enum ucount_type type, long v)
> return (new == 0);
> }
>
> +static void do_dec_rlimit_put_ucounts(struct ucounts *ucounts,
> + struct ucounts *last, enum ucount_type type)
> +{
> + struct ucounts *iter;
> + for (iter = ucounts; iter != last; iter = iter->ns->ucounts) {
> + long dec = atomic_long_add_return(-1, &iter->ucount[type]);
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(dec < 0);
> + if (dec == 0)
> + put_ucounts(iter);
> + }
> +}
> +
> +void dec_rlimit_put_ucounts(struct ucounts *ucounts, enum ucount_type type)
> +{
> + do_dec_rlimit_put_ucounts(ucounts, NULL, type);
> +}
> +
> +long inc_rlimit_get_ucounts(struct ucounts *ucounts, enum ucount_type type)
> +{
> + struct ucounts *iter;
> + long dec, ret = 0;
> +
> + for (iter = ucounts; iter; iter = iter->ns->ucounts) {
> + long max = READ_ONCE(iter->ns->ucount_max[type]);
> + long new = atomic_long_add_return(1, &iter->ucount[type]);
> + if (new < 0 || new > max)
> + goto unwind;
> + else if (iter == ucounts)
> + ret = new;
> + if ((new == 1) && (get_ucounts(iter) != iter))
get_ucounts can do put_ucounts. Are you sure it's correct to use
get_ucounts here?
> + goto dec_unwind;
> + }
> + return ret;
> +dec_unwind:
> + dec = atomic_long_add_return(1, &iter->ucount[type]);
Should be -1 ?
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(dec < 0);
> +unwind:
> + do_dec_rlimit_put_ucounts(ucounts, iter, type);
> + return LONG_MAX;
> +}
> +
> bool is_ucounts_overlimit(struct ucounts *ucounts, enum ucount_type type, unsigned long max)
> {
> struct ucounts *iter;
> --
> 2.20.1
>
--
Rgrds, legion
Powered by blists - more mailing lists