linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND] bootconfig: use memblock_free

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: <20240412163448.98950acccc3baea1a3f07fed@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 16:34:48 +0900
From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To: qiang4.zhang@...ux.intel.com
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Qiang Zhang <qiang4.zhang@...el.com>,
 Stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] bootconfig: use memblock_free_late to free xbc
 memory to buddy

On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 10:41:04 +0800
qiang4.zhang@...ux.intel.com wrote:

> From: Qiang Zhang <qiang4.zhang@...el.com>
> 
> On the time to free xbc memory, memblock has handed over memory to buddy
> allocator. So it doesn't make sense to free memory back to memblock.
> memblock_free() called by xbc_exit() even causes UAF bugs on architectures
> with CONFIG_ARCH_KEEP_MEMBLOCK disabled like x86. Following KASAN logs
> shows this case.
> 
> [    9.410890] ==================================================================
> [    9.418962] BUG: KASAN: use-after-free in memblock_isolate_range+0x12d/0x260
> [    9.426850] Read of size 8 at addr ffff88845dd30000 by task swapper/0/1
> 
> [    9.435901] CPU: 9 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Tainted: G     U             6.9.0-rc3-00208-g586b5dfb51b9 #5
> [    9.446403] Hardware name: Intel Corporation RPLP LP5 (CPU:RaptorLake)/RPLP LP5 (ID:13), BIOS IRPPN02.01.01.00.00.19.015.D-00000000 Dec 28 2023
> [    9.460789] Call Trace:
> [    9.463518]  <TASK>
> [    9.465859]  dump_stack_lvl+0x53/0x70
> [    9.469949]  print_report+0xce/0x610
> [    9.473944]  ? __virt_addr_valid+0xf5/0x1b0
> [    9.478619]  ? memblock_isolate_range+0x12d/0x260
> [    9.483877]  kasan_report+0xc6/0x100
> [    9.487870]  ? memblock_isolate_range+0x12d/0x260
> [    9.493125]  memblock_isolate_range+0x12d/0x260
> [    9.498187]  memblock_phys_free+0xb4/0x160
> [    9.502762]  ? __pfx_memblock_phys_free+0x10/0x10
> [    9.508021]  ? mutex_unlock+0x7e/0xd0
> [    9.512111]  ? __pfx_mutex_unlock+0x10/0x10
> [    9.516786]  ? kernel_init_freeable+0x2d4/0x430
> [    9.521850]  ? __pfx_kernel_init+0x10/0x10
> [    9.526426]  xbc_exit+0x17/0x70
> [    9.529935]  kernel_init+0x38/0x1e0
> [    9.533829]  ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0xd/0x30
> [    9.538601]  ret_from_fork+0x2c/0x50
> [    9.542596]  ? __pfx_kernel_init+0x10/0x10
> [    9.547170]  ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
> [    9.551552]  </TASK>
> 
> [    9.555649] The buggy address belongs to the physical page:
> [    9.561875] page: refcount:0 mapcount:0 mapping:0000000000000000 index:0x1 pfn:0x45dd30
> [    9.570821] flags: 0x200000000000000(node=0|zone=2)
> [    9.576271] page_type: 0xffffffff()
> [    9.580167] raw: 0200000000000000 ffffea0011774c48 ffffea0012ba1848 0000000000000000
> [    9.588823] raw: 0000000000000001 0000000000000000 00000000ffffffff 0000000000000000
> [    9.597476] page dumped because: kasan: bad access detected
> 
> [    9.605362] Memory state around the buggy address:
> [    9.610714]  ffff88845dd2ff00: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> [    9.618786]  ffff88845dd2ff80: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> [    9.626857] >ffff88845dd30000: ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff
> [    9.634930]                    ^
> [    9.638534]  ffff88845dd30080: ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff
> [    9.646605]  ffff88845dd30100: ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff
> [    9.654675] ==================================================================
> 

Oops, good catch! Indeed, it is too late to use memblock_free().

BTW, is it safe to call memblock_free_late() in early boot stage,
because xbc_free_mem() will be called also from xbc_init().
If not, we need a custom internal __xbc_exit() or xbc_cleanup()
which is called from xbc_init() and uses memblock_free().

Thank you,


> Cc: Stable@...r.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Qiang Zhang <qiang4.zhang@...el.com>
> ---
>  lib/bootconfig.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/bootconfig.c b/lib/bootconfig.c
> index c59d26068a64..4524ee944df0 100644
> --- a/lib/bootconfig.c
> +++ b/lib/bootconfig.c
> @@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ static inline void * __init xbc_alloc_mem(size_t size)
>  
>  static inline void __init xbc_free_mem(void *addr, size_t size)
>  {
> -	memblock_free(addr, size);
> +	memblock_free_late(__pa(addr), size);
>  }
>  
>  #else /* !__KERNEL__ */
> -- 
> 2.39.2
> 
> 


-- 
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>