| 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: <Zem5pkNiAy-EZdo9@pc636>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 13:57:10 +0100
From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
To: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc: "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@...il.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>, RCU <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
Neeraj upadhyay <Neeraj.Upadhyay@....com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@...y.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] rcu: Do not release a wait-head from a GP kthread
On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 05:31:31PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>
>
> On 3/5/2024 2:57 PM, Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote:
> > Fix a below race by not releasing a wait-head from the
> > GP-kthread as it can lead for reusing it whereas a worker
> > can still access it thus execute newly added callbacks too
> > early.
> >
> > CPU 0 CPU 1
> > ----- -----
> >
> > // wait_tail == HEAD1
> > rcu_sr_normal_gp_cleanup() {
> > // has passed SR_MAX_USERS_WAKE_FROM_GP
> > wait_tail->next = next;
> > // done_tail = HEAD1
> > smp_store_release(&rcu_state.srs_done_tail, wait_tail);
> > queue_work() {
> > test_and_set_bit(WORK_STRUCT_PENDING_BIT, work_data_bits(work)
> > __queue_work()
> > }
> > }
> >
> > set_work_pool_and_clear_pending()
> > rcu_sr_normal_gp_cleanup_work() {
> > // new GP, wait_tail == HEAD2
> > rcu_sr_normal_gp_cleanup() {
> > // executes all completion, but stop at HEAD1
> > wait_tail->next = HEAD1;
> > // done_tail = HEAD2
> > smp_store_release(&rcu_state.srs_done_tail, wait_tail);
> > queue_work() {
> > test_and_set_bit(WORK_STRUCT_PENDING_BIT, work_data_bits(work)
> > __queue_work()
> > }
> > }
> > // done = HEAD2
> > done = smp_load_acquire(&rcu_state.srs_done_tail);
> > // head = HEAD1
> > head = done->next;
> > done->next = NULL;
> > llist_for_each_safe() {
> > // completes all callbacks, release HEAD1
> > }
> > }
> > // Process second queue
> > set_work_pool_and_clear_pending()
> > rcu_sr_normal_gp_cleanup_work() {
> > // done = HEAD2
> > done = smp_load_acquire(&rcu_state.srs_done_tail);
> >
> > // new GP, wait_tail == HEAD3
> > rcu_sr_normal_gp_cleanup() {
> > // Finds HEAD2 with ->next == NULL at the end
> > rcu_sr_put_wait_head(HEAD2)
> > ...
> >
> > // A few more GPs later
> > rcu_sr_normal_gp_init() {
> > HEAD2 = rcu_sr_get_wait_head();
> > llist_add(HEAD2, &rcu_state.srs_next);
> > // head == rcu_state.srs_next
> > head = done->next;
> > done->next = NULL;
> > llist_for_each_safe() {
> > // EXECUTE CALLBACKS TOO EARLY!!!
> > }
> > }
> >
> > Reported-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
> > Fixes: 05a10b921000 ("rcu: Support direct wake-up of synchronize_rcu() users")
> > Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@...il.com>
> > ---
> > kernel/rcu/tree.c | 22 ++++++++--------------
> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > index 31f3a61f9c38..475647620b12 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > @@ -1656,21 +1656,11 @@ static void rcu_sr_normal_gp_cleanup(void)
> > WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_sr_is_wait_head(wait_tail));
> >
> > /*
> > - * Process (a) and (d) cases. See an illustration. Apart of
> > - * that it handles the scenario when all clients are done,
> > - * wait-head is released if last. The worker is not kicked.
> > + * Process (a) and (d) cases. See an illustration.
> > */
> > llist_for_each_safe(rcu, next, wait_tail->next) {
> > - if (rcu_sr_is_wait_head(rcu)) {
> > - if (!rcu->next) {
> > - rcu_sr_put_wait_head(rcu);
> > - wait_tail->next = NULL;
> > - } else {
> > - wait_tail->next = rcu;
> > - }
> > -
> > + if (rcu_sr_is_wait_head(rcu))
> > break;
> > - }
> >
> > rcu_sr_normal_complete(rcu);
> > // It can be last, update a next on this step.
> > @@ -1684,8 +1674,12 @@ static void rcu_sr_normal_gp_cleanup(void)
> > smp_store_release(&rcu_state.srs_done_tail, wait_tail);
> > ASSERT_EXCLUSIVE_WRITER(rcu_state.srs_done_tail);
> >
> > - if (wait_tail->next)
> > - queue_work(system_highpri_wq, &rcu_state.srs_cleanup_work);
> > + /*
> > + * We schedule a work in order to perform a final processing
> > + * of outstanding users(if still left) and releasing wait-heads
> > + * added by rcu_sr_normal_gp_init() call.
> > + */
> > + queue_work(system_highpri_wq, &rcu_state.srs_cleanup_work);
> > }
>
> Ah, nice. So instead of allocating/freeing in GP thread and freeing in worker,
> you allocate heads only in GP thread and free them only in worker, thus
> essentially fixing the UAF that Frederick found.
>
> AFAICS, this fixes the issue.
>
> Reviewed-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>
>
Thank you for the review-by!
> There might a way to prevent queuing new work as fast-path optimization, incase
> the CBs per GP will always be < SR_MAX_USERS_WAKE_FROM_GP but I could not find a
> workqueue API that helps there, and work_busy() has comments saying not to use that.
>
This is not really critical but yes, we can think of it.
--
Uladzislau Rezki
Powered by blists - more mailing lists