netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf] bpf: cgroup: prevent out-of-order release of cgroup bpf

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: <20200104003523.rfte5rw6hbnncjes@ast-mbp>
Date:   Fri, 3 Jan 2020 16:35:25 -0800
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Cc:     bpf@...r.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf] bpf: cgroup: prevent out-of-order release of cgroup
 bpf

On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 01:50:34PM -0800, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> Before commit 4bfc0bb2c60e ("bpf: decouple the lifetime of cgroup_bpf
> from cgroup itself") cgroup bpf structures were released with
> corresponding cgroup structures. It guaranteed the hierarchical order
> of destruction: children were always first. It preserved attached
> programs from being released before their propagated copies.
> 
> But with cgroup auto-detachment there are no such guarantees anymore:
> cgroup bpf is released as soon as the cgroup is offline and there are
> no live associated sockets. It means that an attached program can be
> detached and released, while its propagated copy is still living
> in the cgroup subtree. This will obviously lead to an use-after-free
> bug.
...
> @@ -65,6 +65,9 @@ static void cgroup_bpf_release(struct work_struct *work)
>  
>  	mutex_unlock(&cgroup_mutex);
>  
> +	for (p = cgroup_parent(cgrp); p; p = cgroup_parent(p))
> +		cgroup_bpf_put(p);
> +

The fix makes sense, but is it really safe to walk cgroup hierarchy
without holding cgroup_mutex?