| 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: <01fd2b11-513d-eb91-5ce6-fcaa198f8d28@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2022 15:09:23 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Charan Teja Kalla <quic_charante@...cinc.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mhocko@...e.com, vbabka@...e.cz,
pasha.tatashin@...een.com, shakeelb@...gle.com, sieberf@...zon.com,
sjpark@...zon.de, william.kucharski@...cle.com,
willy@...radead.org, quic_pkondeti@...cinc.com, minchan@...gle.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4] mm: fix use-after free of page_ext after race with
memory-offline
On 18.08.22 15:50, Charan Teja Kalla wrote:
> The below is one path where race between page_ext and offline of the
> respective memory blocks will cause use-after-free on the access of
> page_ext structure.
>
> process1 process2
> --------- ---------
> a)doing /proc/page_owner doing memory offline
> through offline_pages.
>
> b)PageBuddy check is failed
> thus proceed to get the
> page_owner information
> through page_ext access.
> page_ext = lookup_page_ext(page);
>
> migrate_pages();
> .................
> Since all pages are successfully
> migrated as part of the offline
> operation,send MEM_OFFLINE notification
> where for page_ext it calls:
> offline_page_ext()-->
> __free_page_ext()-->
> free_page_ext()-->
> vfree(ms->page_ext)
> mem_section->page_ext = NULL
>
> c) Check for the PAGE_EXT flags
> in the page_ext->flags access
> results into the use-after-free(leading
> to the translation faults).
>
> As mentioned above, there is really no synchronization between page_ext
> access and its freeing in the memory_offline.
>
> The memory offline steps(roughly) on a memory block is as below:
> 1) Isolate all the pages
> 2) while(1)
> try free the pages to buddy.(->free_list[MIGRATE_ISOLATE])
> 3) delete the pages from this buddy list.
> 4) Then free page_ext.(Note: The struct page is still alive as it is
> freed only during hot remove of the memory which frees the memmap, which
> steps the user might not perform).
>
> This design leads to the state where struct page is alive but the struct
> page_ext is freed, where the later is ideally part of the former which
> just representing the page_flags (check [3] for why this design is
> chosen).
>
> The above mentioned race is just one example __but the problem persists
> in the other paths too involving page_ext->flags access(eg:
> page_is_idle())__.
>
> Fix all the paths where offline races with page_ext access by
> maintaining synchronization with rcu lock and is achieved in 3 steps:
> 1) Invalidate all the page_ext's of the sections of a memory block by
> storing a flag in the LSB of mem_section->page_ext.
>
> 2) Wait till all the existing readers to finish working with the
> ->page_ext's with synchronize_rcu(). Any parallel process that starts
> after this call will not get page_ext, through lookup_page_ext(), for
> the block parallel offline operation is being performed.
>
> 3) Now safely free all sections ->page_ext's of the block on which
> offline operation is being performed.
>
> Note: If synchronize_rcu() takes time then optimizations can be done in
> this path through call_rcu()[2].
>
> Thanks to David Hildenbrand for his views/suggestions on the initial
> discussion[1] and Pavan kondeti for various inputs on this patch.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/59edde13-4167-8550-86f0-11fc67882107@quicinc.com/
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/a26ce299-aed1-b8ad-711e-a49e82bdd180@quicinc.com/T/#u
> [3] https://lore.kernel.org/all/6fa6b7aa-731e-891c-3efb-a03d6a700efa@redhat.com/
>
> Suggested-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
> Suggested-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> Signed-off-by: Charan Teja Kalla <quic_charante@...cinc.com>
In general, LGTM, one comment below.
>
> static ssize_t
> @@ -508,6 +527,14 @@ read_page_owner(struct file *file, char __user *buf, size_t count, loff_t *ppos)
> /* Find an allocated page */
> for (; pfn < max_pfn; pfn++) {
> /*
> + * This temporary page_owner is required so
> + * that we can avoid the context switches while holding
> + * the rcu lock and copying the page owner information to
> + * user through copy_to_user() or GFP_KERNEL allocations.
> + */
> + struct page_owner page_owner_tmp;
> +
> + /*
> * If the new page is in a new MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES area,
> * validate the area as existing, skip it if not
> */
> @@ -525,7 +552,7 @@ read_page_owner(struct file *file, char __user *buf, size_t count, loff_t *ppos)
> continue;
> }
>
> - page_ext = lookup_page_ext(page);
> + page_ext = page_ext_get(page);
> if (unlikely(!page_ext))
> continue;
>
> @@ -534,14 +561,14 @@ read_page_owner(struct file *file, char __user *buf, size_t count, loff_t *ppos)
> * because we don't hold the zone lock.
> */
> if (!test_bit(PAGE_EXT_OWNER, &page_ext->flags))
> - continue;
> + goto loop;
>
> /*
> * Although we do have the info about past allocation of free
> * pages, it's not relevant for current memory usage.
> */
> if (!test_bit(PAGE_EXT_OWNER_ALLOCATED, &page_ext->flags))
> - continue;
> + goto loop;
>
> page_owner = get_page_owner(page_ext);
>
> @@ -550,7 +577,7 @@ read_page_owner(struct file *file, char __user *buf, size_t count, loff_t *ppos)
> * would inflate the stats.
> */
> if (!IS_ALIGNED(pfn, 1 << page_owner->order))
> - continue;
> + goto loop;
>
> /*
> * Access to page_ext->handle isn't synchronous so we should
> @@ -558,13 +585,17 @@ read_page_owner(struct file *file, char __user *buf, size_t count, loff_t *ppos)
> */
> handle = READ_ONCE(page_owner->handle);
> if (!handle)
> - continue;
> + goto loop;
>
> /* Record the next PFN to read in the file offset */
> *ppos = (pfn - min_low_pfn) + 1;
>
> + page_owner_tmp = *page_owner;
> + page_ext_put(page_ext);
> return print_page_owner(buf, count, pfn, page,
> - page_owner, handle);
> + &page_owner_tmp, handle);
> +loop:
> + page_ext_put(page_ext);
> }
>
> return 0;
> @@ -617,18 +648,20 @@ static void init_pages_in_zone(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct zone *zone)
> if (PageReserved(page))
> continue;
>
> - page_ext = lookup_page_ext(page);
> + page_ext = page_ext_get(page);
> if (unlikely(!page_ext))
> continue;
>
> /* Maybe overlapping zone */
> if (test_bit(PAGE_EXT_OWNER, &page_ext->flags))
> - continue;
> + goto loop;
>
> /* Found early allocated page */
> __set_page_owner_handle(page_ext, early_handle,
> 0, 0);
> count++;
> +loop:
> + page_ext_put(page_ext);
> }
I kind-of dislike the "loop" labels. Can we come up with a more
expressive name?
"put_continue"
or something?
One alternative would be to add to the beginning of the loop, and after
the loop sth like
if (page_ext) {
page_ext_put(page_ext);
page_ext = NULL;
}
One could wrap that in a function, but not sure if that improves the
situation.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists