linux-kernel - Re: io_msg_remote_post() sets up dangling pointer (but it is never accessed)?

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: <CAG48ez0C1ZKBDi+n9J=FDFKHN7UhQF371AkefCNNqoYMONhxGw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2025 00:44:51 +0100
From: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: io-uring <io-uring@...r.kernel.org>, kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: io_msg_remote_post() sets up dangling pointer (but it is never accessed)?

On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 12:41 AM Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> wrote:
> I think the following statement in io_msg_remote_post():
>
> req->tctx = READ_ONCE(ctx->submitter_task->io_uring);
>
> sets req->tctx to a pointer that may immediately become dangling if
> the ctx->submitter_task concurrently goes through execve() including
> the call path:
>
> begin_new_exec -> io_uring_task_cancel -> __io_uring_cancel(true) ->
> io_uring_cancel_generic(true, ...) -> __io_uring_free()
>
> However, I can't find any codepath that can actually dereference the
> req->tctx of such a ring message; and I did some quick test under
> KASAN, and that also did not reveal any issue.
>
> I think the current code is probably fine, but it would be nice if we
> could avoid having a potentially dangling pointer here. Can we NULL
> out the req->tctx in io_msg_remote_post(), or is that actually used
> for some pointer comparison or such?

This seems to have been the case since commit
b6f58a3f4aa8dba424356c7a69388a81f4459300 ("io_uring: move struct
io_kiocb from task_struct to io_uring_task").