Re: [PATCH] fork/pid: Fix use-after-free in __task_pid_nr_ns

Re: [PATCH] fork/pid: Fix use-after-free in __task_pid_nr_ns

[Kees Cook]

On Mon, Jan 05, 2026 at 12:56:09PM +0800, Qing Wang wrote:
> Syzbot reported a slab-use-after-free issue in __task_pid_nr_ns:
> 
>     BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in __task_pid_nr_ns+0x1e4/0x490...
>     Read of size 8 at addr ffff88807f8058a8 by task syz.1.574/8108
> 
> The race condition occurs between the failure path of copy_process() and
> getting the PIDTYPE_TGID via __task_pid_nr_ns().
> 
> Bug timeline:
>                                     Task B
>                                     perf_event_open()
> Task A <--------------------------- clone()
> copy_process()
>     perf_event_init_task()
>     ...
>     one copy failed
>     free_signal_struct()            close(event_fd)
>                                         perf_child_detach()
>                                             __task_pid_nr_ns()
>                                                 access child task->signal
> 
> This is fixed by:
> 1. Setting task->signal = NULL in the failure cleanup path of copy_process.
> 2. Adding a null check for task->signal before accessing PIDTYPE_TGID from
> task->signal.
> 
> Note: This bug was reported by syzbot without a reproducer.
> The fix is based on code inspection and race condition analysis.

It seems like there is synchronization missing between the task->signal
assignment and its check in task_pid_ptr? Aren't there other ways of
checking if a task is dead? This change doesn't look right to me...

-Kees

> 
> Reported-by: syzbot+e0378d4f4fe57aa2bdd0@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=e0378d4f4fe57aa2bdd0
> Signed-off-by: Qing Wang <wangqing7171@gmail.com>
> ---
>  kernel/fork.c | 8 ++++++--
>  kernel/pid.c  | 6 +++---
>  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c
> index b1f3915d5f8e..72b9b37a96c8 100644
> --- a/kernel/fork.c
> +++ b/kernel/fork.c
> @@ -1975,6 +1975,7 @@ __latent_entropy struct task_struct *copy_process(
>  	struct file *pidfile = NULL;
>  	const u64 clone_flags = args->flags;
>  	struct nsproxy *nsp = current->nsproxy;
> +	struct signal_struct *free_sig = NULL;
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * Don't allow sharing the root directory with processes in a different
> @@ -2501,8 +2502,11 @@ __latent_entropy struct task_struct *copy_process(
>  		mmput(p->mm);
>  	}
>  bad_fork_cleanup_signal:
> -	if (!(clone_flags & CLONE_THREAD))
> -		free_signal_struct(p->signal);
> +	if (!(clone_flags & CLONE_THREAD)) {
> +		free_sig = p->signal;
> +		p->signal = NULL;
> +		free_signal_struct(free_sig);
> +	}
>  bad_fork_cleanup_sighand:
>  	__cleanup_sighand(p->sighand);
>  bad_fork_cleanup_fs:
> diff --git a/kernel/pid.c b/kernel/pid.c
> index a31771bc89c1..1a012e033552 100644
> --- a/kernel/pid.c
> +++ b/kernel/pid.c
> @@ -329,9 +329,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(find_vpid);
>  
>  static struct pid **task_pid_ptr(struct task_struct *task, enum pid_type type)
>  {
> -	return (type == PIDTYPE_PID) ?
> -		&task->thread_pid :
> -		&task->signal->pids[type];
> +	if (type == PIDTYPE_PID)
> +		return &task->thread_pid;
> +	return task->signal ? &task->signal->pids[type] : NULL;
>  }
>  
>  /*
> -- 
> 2.34.1
> 

-- 
Kees Cook

Re: [PATCH] fork/pid: Fix use-after-free in __task_pid_nr_ns

[Qing Wang]

On Thu, 08 Jan 2026 at 04:39, Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org> wrote:
> It seems like there is synchronization missing between the task->signal
> assignment and its check in task_pid_ptr? Aren't there other ways of
> checking if a task is dead? This change doesn't look right to me...
> 
> -Kees

Thanks for your reply. Oleg and I discussed this and concluded that this
issue no longer exists.

Discussion: https://lore.kernel.org/all/aV5zkjzLTwKQOn9D@redhat.com/#R

Qing.

Re: [PATCH] fork/pid: Fix use-after-free in __task_pid_nr_ns

[Qing Wang]

On Thu, 08 Jan 2026 at 04:39, Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org> wrote:
> It seems like there is synchronization missing between the task->signal
> assignment and its check in task_pid_ptr? Aren't there other ways of
> checking if a task is dead? This change doesn't look right to me...
> 
> -Kees

Thanks for your reply. Oleg and I discussed this and concluded that this
issue no longer exists.

Discussion: https://lore.kernel.org/all/aV5zkjzLTwKQOn9D@redhat.com/#R

Qing.