| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 06:04:10 -0400
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
To: Baokun Li <libaokun@...weicloud.com>, netfs@...ts.linux.dev,
dhowells@...hat.com
Cc: hsiangkao@...ux.alibaba.com, jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com,
zhujia.zj@...edance.com, linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
yangerkun@...wei.com, houtao1@...wei.com, yukuai3@...wei.com,
wozizhi@...wei.com, Baokun Li <libaokun1@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] cachefiles: cyclic allocation of msg_id to avoid
reuse
On Mon, 2024-05-20 at 12:06 +0800, Baokun Li wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> Thank you very much for your review!
>
> On 2024/5/19 19:11, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Wed, 2024-05-15 at 20:51 +0800, libaokun@...weicloud.com wrote:
> > > From: Baokun Li <libaokun1@...wei.com>
> > >
> > > Reusing the msg_id after a maliciously completed reopen request may cause
> > > a read request to remain unprocessed and result in a hung, as shown below:
> > >
> > > t1 | t2 | t3
> > > -------------------------------------------------
> > > cachefiles_ondemand_select_req
> > > cachefiles_ondemand_object_is_close(A)
> > > cachefiles_ondemand_set_object_reopening(A)
> > > queue_work(fscache_object_wq, &info->work)
> > > ondemand_object_worker
> > > cachefiles_ondemand_init_object(A)
> > > cachefiles_ondemand_send_req(OPEN)
> > > // get msg_id 6
> > > wait_for_completion(&req_A->done)
> > > cachefiles_ondemand_daemon_read
> > > // read msg_id 6 req_A
> > > cachefiles_ondemand_get_fd
> > > copy_to_user
> > > // Malicious completion msg_id 6
> > > copen 6,-1
> > > cachefiles_ondemand_copen
> > > complete(&req_A->done)
> > > // will not set the object to close
> > > // because ondemand_id && fd is valid.
> > >
> > > // ondemand_object_worker() is done
> > > // but the object is still reopening.
> > >
> > > // new open req_B
> > > cachefiles_ondemand_init_object(B)
> > > cachefiles_ondemand_send_req(OPEN)
> > > // reuse msg_id 6
> > > process_open_req
> > > copen 6,A.size
> > > // The expected failed copen was executed successfully
> > >
> > > Expect copen to fail, and when it does, it closes fd, which sets the
> > > object to close, and then close triggers reopen again. However, due to
> > > msg_id reuse resulting in a successful copen, the anonymous fd is not
> > > closed until the daemon exits. Therefore read requests waiting for reopen
> > > to complete may trigger hung task.
> > >
> > > To avoid this issue, allocate the msg_id cyclically to avoid reusing the
> > > msg_id for a very short duration of time.
> > >
> > > Fixes: c8383054506c ("cachefiles: notify the user daemon when looking up cookie")
> > > Signed-off-by: Baokun Li <libaokun1@...wei.com>
> > > ---
> > > fs/cachefiles/internal.h | 1 +
> > > fs/cachefiles/ondemand.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++----
> > > 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/cachefiles/internal.h b/fs/cachefiles/internal.h
> > > index 8ecd296cc1c4..9200c00f3e98 100644
> > > --- a/fs/cachefiles/internal.h
> > > +++ b/fs/cachefiles/internal.h
> > > @@ -128,6 +128,7 @@ struct cachefiles_cache {
> > > unsigned long req_id_next;
> > > struct xarray ondemand_ids; /* xarray for ondemand_id allocation */
> > > u32 ondemand_id_next;
> > > + u32 msg_id_next;
> > > };
> > >
> > > static inline bool cachefiles_in_ondemand_mode(struct cachefiles_cache *cache)
> > > diff --git a/fs/cachefiles/ondemand.c b/fs/cachefiles/ondemand.c
> > > index f6440b3e7368..b10952f77472 100644
> > > --- a/fs/cachefiles/ondemand.c
> > > +++ b/fs/cachefiles/ondemand.c
> > > @@ -433,20 +433,32 @@ static int cachefiles_ondemand_send_req(struct cachefiles_object *object,
> > > smp_mb();
> > >
> > > if (opcode == CACHEFILES_OP_CLOSE &&
> > > - !cachefiles_ondemand_object_is_open(object)) {
> > > + !cachefiles_ondemand_object_is_open(object)) {
> > > WARN_ON_ONCE(object->ondemand->ondemand_id == 0);
> > > xas_unlock(&xas);
> > > ret = -EIO;
> > > goto out;
> > > }
> > >
> > > - xas.xa_index = 0;
> > > + /*
> > > + * Cyclically find a free xas to avoid msg_id reuse that would
> > > + * cause the daemon to successfully copen a stale msg_id.
> > > + */
> > > + xas.xa_index = cache->msg_id_next;
> > > xas_find_marked(&xas, UINT_MAX, XA_FREE_MARK);
> > > + if (xas.xa_node == XAS_RESTART) {
> > > + xas.xa_index = 0;
> > > + xas_find_marked(&xas, cache->msg_id_next - 1, XA_FREE_MARK);
> > > + }
> > > if (xas.xa_node == XAS_RESTART)
> > > xas_set_err(&xas, -EBUSY);
> > > +
> > > xas_store(&xas, req);
> > > - xas_clear_mark(&xas, XA_FREE_MARK);
> > > - xas_set_mark(&xas, CACHEFILES_REQ_NEW);
> > > + if (xas_valid(&xas)) {
> > > + cache->msg_id_next = xas.xa_index + 1;
> > If you have a long-standing stuck request, could this counter wrap
> > around and you still end up with reuse?
> Yes, msg_id_next is declared to be of type u32 in the hope that when
> xa_index == UINT_MAX, a wrap around occurs so that msg_id_next
> goes to zero. Limiting xa_index to no more than UINT_MAX is to avoid
> the xarry being too deep.
>
> If msg_id_next is equal to the id of a long-standing stuck request
> after the wrap-around, it is true that the reuse in the above problem
> may also occur.
>
> But I feel that a long stuck request is problematic in itself, it means
> that after we have sent 4294967295 requests, the first one has not
> been processed yet, and even if we send a million requests per
> second, this one hasn't been completed for more than an hour.
>
> We have a keep-alive process that pulls the daemon back up as
> soon as it exits, and there is a timeout mechanism for requests in
> the daemon to prevent the kernel from waiting for long periods
> of time. In other words, we should avoid the situation where
> a request is stuck for a long period of time.
>
> If you think UINT_MAX is not enough, perhaps we could raise
> the maximum value of msg_id_next to ULONG_MAX?
> > Maybe this should be using
> > ida_alloc/free instead, which would prevent that too?
> >
> The id reuse here is that the kernel has finished the open request
> req_A and freed its id_A and used it again when sending the open
> request req_B, but the daemon is still working on req_A, so the
> copen id_A succeeds but operates on req_B.
>
> The id that is being used by the kernel will not be allocated here
> so it seems that ida _alloc/free does not prevent reuse either,
> could you elaborate a bit more how this works?
>
ida_alloc and free absolutely prevent reuse while the id is in use.
That's sort of the point of those functions. Basically it uses a set of
bitmaps in an xarray to track which IDs are in use, so ida_alloc only
hands out values which are not in use. See the comments over
ida_alloc_range() in lib/idr.c.
> >
> > > + xas_clear_mark(&xas, XA_FREE_MARK);
> > > + xas_set_mark(&xas, CACHEFILES_REQ_NEW);
> > > + }
> > > xas_unlock(&xas);
> > > } while (xas_nomem(&xas, GFP_KERNEL));
> > >
>
> Thanks again!
>
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists