linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] hard-to-hit mm_struct UAF due to insufficiently careful vma_refcount_put() wrt SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY

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: <CAJuCfpEVrpHACx2G2=Gq7YadxkA-DnFpFmbUij=Xr1=w7yrLbg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2025 07:29:42 -0700
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, 
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, 
	Pedro Falcato <pfalcato@...e.de>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, 
	kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] hard-to-hit mm_struct UAF due to insufficiently careful
 vma_refcount_put() wrt SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU

On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 3:53 AM Lorenzo Stoakes
<lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 10:38:06AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > On 7/24/25 04:30, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > So, I think vma_refcount_put() can mmgrab(vma->mm) before calling
> > > __refcount_dec_and_test(), to stabilize that mm and then mmdrop()
> > > after it calls rcuwait_wake_up(). What do you think about this
> > > approach, folks?
> >
> > Yeah except it would be wasteful to do for all vma_refcount_put(). Should be
> > enough to have this version (as Jann suggested) for inval_end_read: part of
> > lock_vma_under_rcu.

Yes, definitely.

> > I think we need it also for the vma_refcount_put() done
> > in vma_start_read() when we fail the seqcount check? I think in that case
> > the same thing can be happening too, just with different race windows?

Yes.

> >
> > Also as Jann suggested, maybe it's not great (or even safe) to perform
> > __mmdrop() under rcu? And maybe some vma_start_read() users are even more
> > restricted? Maybe then we'd need to make __mmdrop_delayed() not RT-only, and
> > use that.
>
> Agreed that doing this under RCU seems unwise.
>
> I know PTL relies on this as well as zap PTE page table reclaim, likely these
> wouldn't interact with an mm going away (you'd hope!) but it seems unwise to
> play around with assumptions here.

__mmdrop_delayed() is a viable option but I would hate adding
mm->delayed_drop for !CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT just for this one case.
Alternatively, we don't need to be in the rcu read section when we
call vma_end_read() inside lock_vma_under_rcu(). We refcounted the
vma, so it's locked and stable, no need for RCU at that point. We can
move rcu_read_unlock() before vma_end_read(). However that's not the
case with the vma_refcount_put() inside vma_start_read(). We could
change vma_start_read() semantics so that it drops rcu_read_lock
before it returns. That way we could do vma_refcount_put() after
rcu_read_unlock() in both places.  The retry case in
lock_vma_under_rcu() would have to reacquire rcu_read_lock() but that
retry is not the usual path, so should not affect overall locking
performance. What do you think about this alternative?