linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: vmalloc: Ensure vmap_block is initialised before adding to queue

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240813065125.ymrzb4fdz26trovw@oppo.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 14:51:25 +0800
From: "Hailong . Liu" <hailong.liu@...o.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
CC: <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Zhaoyang Huang
	<zhaoyang.huang@...soc.com>, Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>, Baoquan He
	<bhe@...hat.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Lorenzo Stoakes
	<lstoakes@...il.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Andrew Morton
	<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: vmalloc: Ensure vmap_block is initialised before
 adding to queue

On Mon, 12. Aug 18:16, Will Deacon wrote:
> Commit 8c61291fd850 ("mm: fix incorrect vbq reference in
> purge_fragmented_block") extended the 'vmap_block' structure to contain
> a 'cpu' field which is set at allocation time to the id of the
> initialising CPU.
>
> When a new 'vmap_block' is being instantiated by new_vmap_block(), the
> partially initialised structure is added to the local 'vmap_block_queue'
> xarray before the 'cpu' field has been initialised. If another CPU is
> concurrently walking the xarray (e.g. via vm_unmap_aliases()), then it
> may perform an out-of-bounds access to the remote queue thanks to an
> uninitialised index.
>
> This has been observed as UBSAN errors in Android:
>
>  | Internal error: UBSAN: array index out of bounds: 00000000f2005512 [#1] PREEMPT SMP
>  |
>  | Call trace:
>  |  purge_fragmented_block+0x204/0x21c
>  |  _vm_unmap_aliases+0x170/0x378
>  |  vm_unmap_aliases+0x1c/0x28
>  |  change_memory_common+0x1dc/0x26c
>  |  set_memory_ro+0x18/0x24
>  |  module_enable_ro+0x98/0x238
>  |  do_init_module+0x1b0/0x310
>
> Move the initialisation of 'vb->cpu' in new_vmap_block() ahead of the
> addition to the xarray.
>
> Cc: Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@...soc.com>
> Cc: Hailong.Liu <hailong.liu@...o.com>
> Cc: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@...il.com>
> Cc: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
> Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org>
> Fixes: 8c61291fd850 ("mm: fix incorrect vbq reference in purge_fragmented_block")
> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
> ---
>
> I _think_ the insertion into the free list is ok, as the vb shouldn't be
> considered for purging if it's clean. It would be great if somebody more
> familiar with this code could confirm either way, however.
>
>  mm/vmalloc.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
> index 6b783baf12a1..64c0a2c8a73c 100644
> --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> @@ -2626,6 +2626,7 @@ static void *new_vmap_block(unsigned int order, gfp_t gfp_mask)
>  	vb->dirty_max = 0;
>  	bitmap_set(vb->used_map, 0, (1UL << order));
>  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&vb->free_list);
> +	vb->cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
>
>  	xa = addr_to_vb_xa(va->va_start);
>  	vb_idx = addr_to_vb_idx(va->va_start);
> @@ -2642,7 +2643,6 @@ static void *new_vmap_block(unsigned int order, gfp_t gfp_mask)
>  	 * integrity together with list_for_each_rcu from read
>  	 * side.
>  	 */
> -	vb->cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
>  	vbq = per_cpu_ptr(&vmap_block_queue, vb->cpu);
>  	spin_lock(&vbq->lock);
>  	list_add_tail_rcu(&vb->free_list, &vbq->free);
> --
> 2.46.0.76.ge559c4bf1a-goog
>
>
Agree, actully I had comment in
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240604034945.tqwp2sxldpy6ido5@oppo.com/
myabe put this line in vb's initialization before xa_insert looks more reasonable for me.

Thanks.
--
help you, help me,
Hailong.