linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH-block v2] bdi, blk-cgroup: Fix potential UAF of blkcg

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 30 Nov 2022 10:44:36 -0500
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>,
        Chaitanya Kulkarni <chaitanyak@...dia.com>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
        Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
        Yi Zhang <yi.zhang@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-block v2] bdi, blk-cgroup: Fix potential UAF of blkcg


On 11/30/22 10:16, Michal Koutný wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 03:34:00PM -0500, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com> wrote:
>> The reproducing system can no longer produce a warning with this patch.
>> All the runnable block/0* tests including block/027 were run successfully
>> without failure.
> Thanks for the test!
>
>> @@ -1088,7 +1088,15 @@ static void blkcg_destroy_blkgs(struct blkcg *blkcg)
>>   
>>   	might_sleep();
>>   
>> -	css_get(&blkcg->css);
>> +	/*
>> +	 * blkcg_destroy_blkgs() shouldn't be called with all the blkcg
>> +	 * references gone and rcu_read_lock not held.
>> +	 */
>> +	if (!css_tryget(&blkcg->css)) {
>> +		WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held());
>> +		return;
>> +	}
> As I followed the previous discussion, the principle is that obtaining a
> reference or being inside an RCU read section is sufficient.
>
> Consequently, I'd expect the two situations handled equally but here the
> no-ref but RCU bails out. (Which is OK because blkg_list must be empty?)
>
> However, the might_sleep() in (non-sleepable) RCU reader section combo
> makes me wary anyway (not with the early return but tools would likely
> complain).
>
> All in all, can't the contract of blkcg_destroy_blkgs() declare that
> a caller must pass blkcg with a valid reference? (The body of
> blkcg_destroy_blkgs then wouldn't need to get neither put the inner
> reference).

You are right. I should have pushed the might_sleep down(). Will post a 
new version to fix that.

Thanks,
Longman