linux-kernel - [PATCH] mm: Don't drop VMA locks in mm_drop_all

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 20 Jul 2023 03:32:49 +0200
From:   Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] mm: Don't drop VMA locks in mm_drop_all_locks()

Despite its name, mm_drop_all_locks() does not drop _all_ locks; the mmap
lock is held write-locked by the caller, and the caller is responsible for
dropping the mmap lock at a later point (which will also release the VMA
locks).
Calling vma_end_write_all() here is dangerous because the caller might have
write-locked a VMA with the expectation that it will stay write-locked
until the mmap_lock is released, as usual.

This _almost_ becomes a problem in the following scenario:

An anonymous VMA A and an SGX VMA B are mapped adjacent to each other.
Userspace calls munmap() on a range starting at the start address of A and
ending in the middle of B.

Hypothetical call graph with additional notes in brackets:

do_vmi_align_munmap
  [begin first for_each_vma_range loop]
  vma_start_write [on VMA A]
  vma_mark_detached [on VMA A]
  __split_vma [on VMA B]
    sgx_vma_open [== new->vm_ops->open]
      sgx_encl_mm_add
        __mmu_notifier_register [luckily THIS CAN'T ACTUALLY HAPPEN]
          mm_take_all_locks
          mm_drop_all_locks
            vma_end_write_all [drops VMA lock taken on VMA A before]
  vma_start_write [on VMA B]
  vma_mark_detached [on VMA B]
  [end first for_each_vma_range loop]
  vma_iter_clear_gfp [removes VMAs from maple tree]
  mmap_write_downgrade
  unmap_region
  mmap_read_unlock

In this hypothetical scenario, while do_vmi_align_munmap() thinks it still
holds a VMA write lock on VMA A, the VMA write lock has actually been
invalidated inside __split_vma().

The call from sgx_encl_mm_add() to __mmu_notifier_register() can't
actually happen here, as far as I understand, because we are duplicating an
existing SGX VMA, but sgx_encl_mm_add() only calls
__mmu_notifier_register() for the first SGX VMA created in a given process.
So this could only happen in fork(), not on munmap().
But in my view it is just pure luck that this can't happen.

Also, we wouldn't actually have any bad consequences from this in
do_vmi_align_munmap(), because by the time the bug drops the lock on VMA A,
we've already marked VMA A as detached, which makes it completely
ineligible for any VMA-locked page faults.
But again, that's just pure luck.

So remove the vma_end_write_all(), so that VMA write locks are only ever
released on mmap_write_unlock() or mmap_write_downgrade().

Fixes: eeff9a5d47f8 ("mm/mmap: prevent pagefault handler from racing with mmu_notifier registration")
Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Signed-off-by: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
---
 mm/mmap.c | 1 -
 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/mm/mmap.c b/mm/mmap.c
index 3eda23c9ebe7..1ff354b1e23c 100644
--- a/mm/mmap.c
+++ b/mm/mmap.c
@@ -3758,7 +3758,6 @@ void mm_drop_all_locks(struct mm_struct *mm)
 		if (vma->vm_file && vma->vm_file->f_mapping)
 			vm_unlock_mapping(vma->vm_file->f_mapping);
 	}
-	vma_end_write_all(mm);

 	mutex_unlock(&mm_all_locks_mutex);
 }

base-commit: bfa3037d828050896ae52f6467b6ca2489ae6fb1
-- 
2.41.0.255.g8b1d071c50-goog