linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm, mmap: fix vma_merge() case 7 with vma

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

Message-ID: <20240222185642.rmnp76oquu5wfo6c@revolver>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 13:56:42 -0500
From: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, mmap: fix vma_merge() case 7 with vma_ops->close

* Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz> [240222 11:56]:
> When debugging issues with a workload using SysV shmem, Michal Hocko has
> come up with a reproducer that shows how a series of mprotect()
> operations can result in an elevated shm_nattch and thus leak of the
> resource.
> 
> The problem is caused by wrong assumptions in vma_merge() commit
> 714965ca8252 ("mm/mmap: start distinguishing if vma can be removed in
> mergeability test"). The shmem vmas have a vma_ops->close callback
> that decrements shm_nattch, and we remove the vma without calling it.
> 
> vma_merge() has thus historically avoided merging vma's with
> vma_ops->close and commit 714965ca8252 was supposed to keep it that way.
> It relaxed the checks for vma_ops->close in can_vma_merge_after()
> assuming that it is never called on a vma that would be a candidate for
> removal. However, the vma_merge() code does also use the result of this
> check in the decision to remove a different vma in the merge case 7.
> 
> A robust solution would be to refactor vma_merge() code in a way that
> the vma_ops->close check is only done for vma's that are actually going
> to be removed, and not as part of the preliminary checks. That would
> both solve the existing bug, and also allow additional merges that the
> checks currently prevent unnecessarily in some cases.
> 
> However to fix the existing bug first with a minimized risk, and for
> easier stable backports, this patch only adds a vma_ops->close check to
> the buggy case 7 specifically. All other cases of vma removal are
> covered by the can_vma_merge_before() check that includes the test for
> vma_ops->close.
> 
> The reproducer code, adapted from Michal Hocko's code:
> 
> int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
>   int segment_id;
>   size_t segment_size = 20 * PAGE_SIZE;
>   char * sh_mem;
>   struct shmid_ds shmid_ds;
> 
>   key_t key = 0x1234;
>   segment_id = shmget(key, segment_size,
>                       IPC_CREAT | IPC_EXCL | S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR);
>   sh_mem = (char *)shmat(segment_id, NULL, 0);
> 
>   mprotect(sh_mem + 2*PAGE_SIZE, PAGE_SIZE, PROT_NONE);
> 
>   mprotect(sh_mem + PAGE_SIZE, PAGE_SIZE, PROT_WRITE);
> 
>   mprotect(sh_mem + 2*PAGE_SIZE, PAGE_SIZE, PROT_WRITE);
> 
>   shmdt(sh_mem);
> 
>   shmctl(segment_id, IPC_STAT, &shmid_ds);
>   printf("nattch after shmdt(): %lu (expected: 0)\n", shmid_ds.shm_nattch);
> 
>   if (shmctl(segment_id, IPC_RMID, 0))
>           printf("IPCRM failed %d\n", errno);
>   return (shmid_ds.shm_nattch) ? 1 : 0;
> }
> 
> Fixes: 714965ca8252 ("mm/mmap: start distinguishing if vma can be removed in mergeability test")
> Reported-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
> ---
>  mm/mmap.c | 11 ++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/mmap.c b/mm/mmap.c
> index d89770eaab6b..a4238373ee9b 100644
> --- a/mm/mmap.c
> +++ b/mm/mmap.c
> @@ -954,10 +954,19 @@ static struct vm_area_struct
>  	} else if (merge_prev) {			/* case 2 */
>  		if (curr) {
>  			vma_start_write(curr);
> -			err = dup_anon_vma(prev, curr, &anon_dup);
>  			if (end == curr->vm_end) {	/* case 7 */
> +				/*
> +				 * can_vma_merge_after() assumed we would not be
> +				 * removing prev vma, so it skipped the check
> +				 * for vm_ops->close, but we are removing curr
> +				 */
> +				if (curr->vm_ops && curr->vm_ops->close)
> +					err = -EINVAL;
> +				else
> +					err = dup_anon_vma(prev, curr, &anon_dup);
>  				remove = curr;

This separates the check for potentially merging previous to a later
failure case.  Would it be better to check:
	if (curr && curr->vm_ops && curr->vm_ops->close)

and not set merge_prev = true, ie we cannot merge with the predecessor?

That way we would exit as merge_prev == false.

We would have the added benefit of not having to look at merge_prev &
merge_next case with this vm_ops->close in mind (case 1 and 6).. because
I'm pretty sure we can currently get to case 6 in this way:

merge_prev = true
check for merge_next.. can_vma_merge_before(next...);
is_mergeable_vma(next.... , true);
if (true && next->vm_ops && next->vm_ops->close) /* Fine for next.. */

Remove curr by case 6 without checking curr->vm_ops &&
curr->vm_ops->close

If I am correct, then are we blaming the right commit?

Perhaps we should just fail earlier when we find a curr with the close
ops?

>  			} else {			/* case 5 */
> +				err = dup_anon_vma(prev, curr, &anon_dup);
>  				adjust = curr;
>  				adj_start = (end - curr->vm_start);
>  			}
> -- 
> 2.43.1
>