linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.10/5.15 1/1] kprobes: Fix to handle forcibly unoptimized kprobes on freeing

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: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 09:47:33 -0800
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Fedor Pchelkin <pchelkin@...ras.ru>
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
	"Steven Rostedt (Google)" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lvc-project@...uxtesting.org,
	Pengfei Xu <pengfei.xu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.10/5.15 1/1] kprobes: Fix to handle forcibly
 unoptimized kprobes on freeing_list

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 02:30:31PM +0300, Fedor Pchelkin wrote:
> From: "Masami Hiramatsu (Google)" <mhiramat@...nel.org>
> 
> commit 4fbd2f83fda0ca44a2ec6421ca3508b355b31858 upstream.
> 
> Since forcibly unoptimized kprobes will be put on the freeing_list directly
> in the unoptimize_kprobe(), do_unoptimize_kprobes() must continue to check
> the freeing_list even if unoptimizing_list is empty.
> 
> This bug can happen if a kprobe is put in an instruction which is in the
> middle of the jump-replaced instruction sequence of an optprobe, *and* the
> optprobe is recently unregistered and queued on unoptimizing_list.
> In this case, the optprobe will be unoptimized forcibly (means immediately)
> and put it into the freeing_list, expecting the optprobe will be handled in
> do_unoptimize_kprobe().
> But if there is no other optprobes on the unoptimizing_list, current code
> returns from the do_unoptimize_kprobe() soon and does not handle the
> optprobe which is on the freeing_list. Then the optprobe will hit the
> WARN_ON_ONCE() in the do_free_cleaned_kprobes(), because it is not handled
> in the latter loop of the do_unoptimize_kprobe().
> 
> To solve this issue, do not return from do_unoptimize_kprobes() immediately
> even if unoptimizing_list is empty.
> 
> Moreover, this change affects another case. kill_optimized_kprobes() expects
> kprobe_optimizer() will just free the optprobe on freeing_list.
> So I changed it to just do list_move() to freeing_list if optprobes are on
> unoptimizing list. And the do_unoptimize_kprobe() will skip
> arch_disarm_kprobe() if the probe on freeing_list has gone flag.
> 
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/Y8URdIfVr3pq2X8w@xpf.sh.intel.com/
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/167448024501.3253718.13037333683110512967.stgit@devnote3/
> 
> Fixes: e4add247789e ("kprobes: Fix optimize_kprobe()/unoptimize_kprobe() cancellation logic")
> Reported-by: Pengfei Xu <pengfei.xu@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> Acked-by: Steven Rostedt (Google) <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> [fp: adjust comment conflict regarding commit 223a76b268c9 ("kprobes: Fix
>  coding style issues")]
> Signed-off-by: Fedor Pchelkin <pchelkin@...ras.ru>
> ---
>  kernel/kprobes.c | 23 ++++++++++-------------
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

Now queued up, thanks.

greg k-h