linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: list_lru: fix UAF for memory cgroup

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: <62BBC2A6-D6C3-48B8-B049-932E3BC16F31@linux.dev>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 10:23:43 +0800
From: Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
 Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
 Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>,
 Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
 LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: list_lru: fix UAF for memory cgroup



> On Jul 24, 2024, at 08:45, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 16:36:07 +0800 Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com> wrote:
> 
>> The mem_cgroup_from_slab_obj() is supposed to be called under rcu
>> lock or cgroup_mutex or others which could prevent returned memcg
>> from being freed. Fix it by adding missing rcu read lock.
> 
> "or others" is rather vague.  What others?

Like objcg_lock. I have added this one into obj_cgroup_memcg().

> 
>> @@ -109,14 +110,20 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(list_lru_add);
>> 
>> bool list_lru_add_obj(struct list_lru *lru, struct list_head *item)
>> {
>> + 	bool ret;
>> 	int nid = page_to_nid(virt_to_page(item));
>> - 	struct mem_cgroup *memcg = list_lru_memcg_aware(lru) ?
>> - 	mem_cgroup_from_slab_obj(item) : NULL;
>> + 	struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
>> 
>> - 	return list_lru_add(lru, item, nid, memcg);
>> + 	rcu_read_lock();
>> + 	memcg = list_lru_memcg_aware(lru) ? mem_cgroup_from_slab_obj(item) : NULL;
>> + 	ret = list_lru_add(lru, item, nid, memcg);
>> + 	rcu_read_unlock();
> 
> We don't need rcu_read_lock() to evaluate NULL.
> 
> 	memcg = NULL;
> 	if (list_lru_memcg_aware(lru)) {
> 		rcu_read_lock();
> 		memcg = mem_cgroup_from_slab_obj(item);
> 		rcu_read_unlock();

Actually, the access to memcg is in list_lru_add(), so the rcu lock should
also cover this function rather than only mem_cgroup_from_slab_obj().
Something like:

memcg = NULL;
if (list_lru_memcg_aware(lru)) {
	rcu_read_lock();
	memcg = mem_cgroup_from_slab_obj(item);
}
ret = list_lru_add(lru, item, nid, memcg);
if (list_lru_memcg_aware(lru))
	rcu_read_unlock();

Not concise. I don't know if this is good.

> 	}
> 
> Seems worthwhile?
> 
>