[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <501ead34-d79f-442e-9b9a-ecd694b3015c@samba.org>
Date: Mon, 6 May 2024 19:46:08 +0200
From: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@...ba.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Bui Quang Minh <minhquangbui99@...il.com>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
syzbot <syzbot+045b454ab35fd82a35fb@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
io-uring@...r.kernel.org, jack@...e.cz, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com,
Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>,
Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org, Laura Abbott <laura@...bott.name>
Subject: Re: get_file() unsafe under epoll (was Re: [syzbot] [fs?] [io-uring?]
general protection fault in __ep_remove)
Am 03.05.24 um 23:24 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
> On Fri, 3 May 2024 at 14:11, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> What we need is
>> * promise that ep_item_poll() won't happen after eventpoll_release_file().
>> AFAICS, we do have that.
>> * ->poll() not playing silly buggers.
>
> No. That is not enough at all.
>
> Because even with perfectly normal "->poll()", and even with the
> ep_item_poll() happening *before* eventpoll_release_file(), you have
> this trivial race:
>
> ep_item_poll()
> ->poll()
>
> and *between* those two operations, another CPU does "close()", and
> that causes eventpoll_release_file() to be called, and now f_count
> goes down to zero while ->poll() is running.
>
> So you do need to increment the file count around the ->poll() call, I feel.
>
> Or, alternatively, you'd need to serialize with
> eventpoll_release_file(), but that would need to be some sleeping lock
> held over the ->poll() call.
>
>> As it is, dma_buf ->poll() is very suspicious regardless of that
>> mess - it can grab reference to file for unspecified interval.
>
> I think that's actually much preferable to what epoll does, which is
> to keep using files without having reference counts to them (and then
> relying on magically not racing with eventpoll_release_file().
I think it's a very important detail that epoll does not take
real references. Otherwise an application level 'close()' on a socket
would not trigger a tcp disconnect, when an fd is still registered with
epoll.
I noticed that some parts of Samba currently rely on this when I tried
to convert tevent from epoll to IORING_OP_POLL_ADD (which takes a longer term reference)
And I guess there will be other applications also relying on the current epoll
behavior. That a closed fs automatically removes itself from epoll.
A short term reference just around ->poll() might be fine,
but please no reference via EPOLL_CTL_ADD.
Changing that can cause security problems in user space.
I haven't followed all details of this thread,
please ignore me if that's all clear already :-)
Thanks!
metze
Powered by blists - more mailing lists