Message-ID: <YyyY8prkoxy2qv+W@monkey>
Date:   Thu, 22 Sep 2022 10:18:42 -0700
From:   Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc:     Liu Shixin <liushixin2@...wei.com>,
        Liu Zixian <liuzixian4@...wei.com>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: hugetlb: fix UAF in hugetlb_handle_userfault

On 09/22/22 09:46, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 22.09.22 01:57, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > On 09/21/22 10:48, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > > On 09/21/22 16:34, Liu Shixin wrote:
> > > > The vma_lock and hugetlb_fault_mutex are dropped before handling
> > > > userfault and reacquire them again after handle_userfault(), but
> > > > reacquire the vma_lock could lead to UAF[1] due to the following
> > > > race,
> > > > 
> > > > hugetlb_fault
> > > >    hugetlb_no_page
> > > >      /*unlock vma_lock */
> > > >      hugetlb_handle_userfault
> > > >        handle_userfault
> > > >          /* unlock mm->mmap_lock*/
> > > >                                             vm_mmap_pgoff
> > > >                                               do_mmap
> > > >                                                 mmap_region
> > > >                                                   munmap_vma_range
> > > >                                                     /* clean old vma */
> > > >          /* lock vma_lock again  <--- UAF */
> > > >      /* unlock vma_lock */
> > > > 
> > > > Since the vma_lock will unlock immediately after hugetlb_handle_userfault(),
> > > > let's drop the unneeded lock and unlock in hugetlb_handle_userfault() to fix
> > > > the issue.
> > > 
> > > Thank you very much!
> > > 
> > > When I saw this report, the obvious fix was to do something like what you have
> > > done below.  That looks fine with a few minor comments.
> > > 
> > > One question I have not yet answered is, "Does this same issue apply to
> > > follow_hugetlb_page()?".  I believe it does.  follow_hugetlb_page calls
> > > hugetlb_fault which could result in the fault being processed by userfaultfd.
> > > If we experience the race above, then the associated vma could no longer be
> > > valid when returning from hugetlb_fault.  follow_hugetlb_page and callers
> > > have a flag (locked) to deal with dropping mmap lock.  However, I am not sure
> > > if it is handled correctly WRT userfaultfd.  I think this needs to be answered
> > > before fixing.  And, if the follow_hugetlb_page code needs to be fixed it
> > > should be done at the same time.
> > > 
> > 
> > To at least verify this code path, I added userfaultfd handling to the gup_test
> > program in kernel selftests.  When doing basic gup test on a hugetlb page in
> > a userfaultfd registered range, I hit this warning:
> > 
> > [ 6939.867796] FAULT_FLAG_ALLOW_RETRY missing 1
> > [ 6939.871503] CPU: 2 PID: 5720 Comm: gup_test Not tainted 6.0.0-rc6-next-20220921+ #72
> > [ 6939.874562] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.15.0-1.fc35 04/01/2014
> > [ 6939.877707] Call Trace:
> > [ 6939.878745]  <TASK>
> > [ 6939.879779]  dump_stack_lvl+0x6c/0x9f
> > [ 6939.881199]  handle_userfault.cold+0x14/0x1e
> > [ 6939.882830]  ? find_held_lock+0x2b/0x80
> > [ 6939.884370]  ? __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x45/0x280
> > [ 6939.886145]  hugetlb_handle_userfault+0x90/0xf0
> > [ 6939.887936]  hugetlb_fault+0xb7e/0xda0
> > [ 6939.889409]  ? vprintk_emit+0x118/0x3a0
> > [ 6939.890903]  ? _printk+0x58/0x73
> > [ 6939.892279]  follow_hugetlb_page.cold+0x59/0x145
> > [ 6939.894116]  __get_user_pages+0x146/0x750
> > [ 6939.895580]  __gup_longterm_locked+0x3e9/0x680
> > [ 6939.897023]  ? seqcount_lockdep_reader_access.constprop.0+0xa5/0xb0
> > [ 6939.898939]  ? lockdep_hardirqs_on+0x7d/0x100
> > [ 6939.901243]  gup_test_ioctl+0x320/0x6e0
> > [ 6939.902202]  __x64_sys_ioctl+0x87/0xc0
> > [ 6939.903220]  do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
> > [ 6939.904233]  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd
> > [ 6939.905423] RIP: 0033:0x7fbb53830f7b
> > 
> > This is because userfaultfd is expecting FAULT_FLAG_ALLOW_RETRY which is not
> > set in this path.
> 
> Right. Without being able to drop the mmap lock, we cannot continue. And we
> don't know if we can drop it without FAULT_FLAG_ALLOW_RETRY.
> 
> FAULT_FLAG_ALLOW_RETRY is only set when we can communicate to the caller
> that we dropped the mmap lock [e.g., int *locked parameter].
> 
> All code paths that pass NULL won't be able to handle --  especially
> surprisingly also pin_user_pages_fast() -- cannot trigger usefaultfd and
> will result in this warning.
> 
> 
> A "sane" example is access via /proc/self/mem via ptrace: we don't want to
> trigger userfaultfd, but instead simply fail the GUP get/pin.
> 
> 
> Now, this is just a printed *warning* (not a WARN/BUG/taint) that tells us
> that there is a GUP user that isn't prepared for userfaultfd. So it rather
> points out a missing GUP adaption -- incomplete userfaultfd support. And we
> seem to have plenty of that judging that pin_user_pages_fast_only().
> 
> Maybe the printed stack trace is a bit too much and makes this look very
> scary.
> 
> > 
> > Adding John, Peter and David on Cc: as they are much more fluent in all the
> > fault and FOLL combinations and might have immediate suggestions.  It is going
> > to take me a little while to figure out:
> > 1) How to make sure we get the right flags passed to handle_userfault
> 
> This is a GUP caller problem -- or rather, how GUP has to deal with
> userfaultfd.
> 
> > 2) How to modify follow_hugetlb_page as userfaultfd can certainly drop
> >     mmap_lock.  So we can not assume vma still exists upon return.
> 
> Again, we have to communicate to the GUP caller that we dropped the mmap
> lock. And that requires GUP caller changes.
> 

Thank you and Peter for replying!

The 'good news' is that there does not appear to be a case where userfaultfd
(via hugetlb_fault) drops the lock and follow_hugetlb_page is not prepard for
the consequences.  So, this is not an exposure as in hugetlb_handle_userfault
that is in need of an immediate fix.  i.e. A fix like that originally proposed
here is sufficient.

We can think about whether this specific calling sequence needs to be modified.
-- 
Mike Kravetz

Powered by blists - more mailing lists