[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f48ba16b-0c2c-fa93-c8e0-e6c2adf913aa@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2022 17:57:26 -0700
From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Liu Shixin <liushixin2@...wei.com>
Cc: 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>,
Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: hugetlb: fix UAF in hugetlb_handle_userfault
On 9/21/22 16:57, 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
Just for those of us who are easily confused by userfaultfd cases, can you show
what that patch is? It would help me understand this a little faster.
Actually I'm expecting that Peter can easily answer this whole thing. :)
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
Powered by blists - more mailing lists