| 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: <637873372bf8d_656da2081@john.notmuch>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2022 22:09:59 -0800
From: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>
Cc: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
ast@...nel.org, andrii@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
martin.lau@...ux.dev, memxor@...il.com, yhs@...com,
song@...nel.org, sdf@...gle.com, kpsingh@...nel.org,
jolsa@...nel.org, haoluo@...gle.com, tj@...nel.org,
kernel-team@...com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v7 0/3] Support storing struct task_struct
objects as kptrs
Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 09:08:12AM -0600, David Vernet wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 10:04:27PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > > > And last thing I was checking is because KF_SLEEPABLE is not set
> > > > > this should be blocked from running on sleepable progs which would
> > > > > break the call_rcu in the destructor. Maybe small nit, not sure
> > > > > its worth it but might be nice to annotate the helper description
> > > > > with a note, "will not work on sleepable progs" or something to
> > > > > that effect.
> > > >
> > > > KF_SLEEPABLE is used to indicate whether the kfunc _itself_ may sleep,
> > > > not whether the calling program can be sleepable. call_rcu() doesn't
> > > > block, so no need to mark the kfunc as KF_SLEEPABLE. The key is that if
> > > > a kfunc is sleepable, non-sleepable programs are not able to call it
> > > > (and this is enforced in the verifier).
> > >
> > > OK but should these helpers be allowed in sleepable progs? I think
> > > not. What stops this, (using your helpers):
> > >
> > > cpu0 cpu1
> > > ----
> > > v = insert_lookup_task(task)
> > > kptr = bpf_kptr_xchg(&v->task, NULL);
> > > if (!kptr)
> > > return 0;
> > > map_delete_elem()
> > > put_task()
> > > rcu_call
> > > do_something_might_sleep()
> > > put_task_struct
> > > ... free
>
> the free won't happen here, because the kptr on cpu0 holds the refcnt.
> bpf side never does direct free of kptr. It only inc/dec refcnt via kfuncs.
>
> > > kptr->[free'd memory]
> > >
> > > the insert_lookup_task will bump the refcnt on the acquire on map
> > > insert. But the lookup doesn't do anything to the refcnt and the
>
> lookup from map doesn't touch kptrs in the value.
> just reading v->kptr becomes PTR_UNTRUSTED with probe_mem protection.
>
> > > map_delete_elem will delete it. We have a check for spin_lock
> > > types to stop them from being in sleepable progs. Did I miss a
> > > similar check for these?
> >
> > So, in your example above, bpf_kptr_xchg(&v->task, NULL) will atomically
> > xchg the kptr from the map, and so the map_delete_elem() call would fail
> > with (something like) -ENOENT. In general, the semantics are similar to
> > std::unique_ptr::swap() in C++.
> >
> > FWIW, I think KF_KPTR_GET kfuncs are the more complex / racy kfuncs to
> > reason about. The reason is that we're passing a pointer to the map
> > value containing a kptr directly to the kfunc (with the attempt of
> > acquiring an additional reference if a kptr was already present in the
> > map) rather than doing an xchg which atomically gets us the unique
> > pointer if nobody else xchgs it in first. So with KF_KPTR_GET, someone
> > else could come along and delete the kptr from the map while the kfunc
> > is trying to acquire that additional reference. The race looks something
> > like this:
> >
> > cpu0 cpu1
> > ----
> > v = insert_lookup_task(task)
> > kptr = bpf_task_kptr_get(&v->task);
> > map_delete_elem()
> > put_task()
> > rcu_call
> > put_task_struct
> > ... free
> > if (!kptr)
> > /* In this race example, this path will be taken. */
> > return 0;
> >
> > The difference is that here, we're not doing an atomic xchg of the kptr
> > out of the map. Instead, we're passing a pointer to the map value
> > containing the kptr directly to bpf_task_kptr_get(), which itself tries
> > to acquire an additional reference on the task to return to the program
> > as a kptr. This is still safe, however, as bpf_task_kptr_get() uses RCU
> > and refcount_inc_not_zero() in the bpf_task_kptr_get() kfunc to ensure
> > that it can't hit a UAF, and that it won't return a dying task to the
> > caller:
> >
> > /**
> > * bpf_task_kptr_get - Acquire a reference on a struct task_struct kptr. A task
> > * kptr acquired by this kfunc which is not subsequently stored in a map, must
> > * be released by calling bpf_task_release().
> > * @pp: A pointer to a task kptr on which a reference is being acquired.
> > */
> > __used noinline
> > struct task_struct *bpf_task_kptr_get(struct task_struct **pp)
> > {
> > struct task_struct *p;
> >
> > rcu_read_lock();
> > p = READ_ONCE(*pp);
> >
> > /* <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> > * cpu1 could remove the element from the map here, and invoke
> > * put_task_struct_rcu_user(). We're in an RCU read region
> > * though, so the task won't be freed until at the very
> > * earliest, the rcu_read_unlock() below.
> > * >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > */
> >
> > if (p && !refcount_inc_not_zero(&p->rcu_users))
> > /* <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> > * refcount_inc_not_zero() will return false, as cpu1
> > * deleted the element from the map and dropped its last
> > * refcount. So we just return NULL as the task will be
> > * deleted once an RCU gp has elapsed.
> > * >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > */
> > p = NULL;
> > rcu_read_unlock();
> >
> > return p;
> > }
> >
> > Let me know if that makes sense. This stuff is tricky, and I plan to
> > clearly / thoroughly add it to that kptr docs page once this patch set
> > lands.
>
> All correct. Probably worth adding this comment directly in bpf_task_kptr_get.
Yes also agree thanks for the details. Spent sometime trying to break
it this event, but didn't find anything.
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists