[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20220925112826.c3efd2cf438d1bb6329f78ed@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2022 11:28:26 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Liu Shixin <liushixin2@...wei.com>
Cc: Liu Zixian <liuzixian4@...wei.com>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
Sidhartha Kumar <sidhartha.kumar@...cle.com>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
"David Hildenbrand" <david@...hat.com>,
Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mm: hugetlb: fix UAF in hugetlb_handle_userfault
On Sat, 24 Sep 2022 11:49:05 +0800 Liu Shixin <liushixin2@...wei.com> 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[1,2] 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.
>
Thanks. Turns out that porting all the pending material on top of this
change was not a confidence-inspiring activity. So I ended up merging
your v3. Please work with Greg on the backporting when he gets on to
it? Hopefully that will merely involve sending him this v4.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists