From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
To: Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>
Cc: Munehisa Kamata <kamatam@amazon.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
ebiggers@kernel.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
mengcc@amazon.com
Subject: Re: another use-after-free in ep_remove_wait_queue()
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2023 17:37:11 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJuCfpF9tCx4mjYFyX+p7qO9qt+rm=UMSdBt-uzaOqE0ThG04g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230120013055.3628-1-hdanton@sina.com>
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 5:31 PM Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 13:01:42 -0800 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Folks,
> > I spent some more time digging into the details and this is what's
> > happening. When we call rmdir to delete the cgroup with the pressure
> > file being epoll'ed, roughly the following call chain happens in the
> > context of the shell process:
> >
> > do_rmdir
> > cgroup_rmdir
> > kernfs_drain_open_files
> > cgroup_file_release
> > cgroup_pressure_release
> > psi_trigger_destroy
> >
> > Later on in the context of our reproducer, the last fput() is called
> > causing wait queue removal:
> >
> > fput
> > ep_eventpoll_release
> > ep_free
> > ep_remove_wait_queue
> > remove_wait_queue
> >
> > By this time psi_trigger_destroy() already destroyed the trigger's
> > waitqueue head and we hit UAF.
> > I think the conceptual problem here (or maybe that's by design?) is
> > that cgroup_file_release() is not really tied to the file's real
> > lifetime (when the last fput() is issued). Otherwise fput() would call
> > eventpoll_release() before f_op->release() and the order would be fine
> > (we would remove the wait queue first in eventpoll_release() and then
> > f_op->release() would cause trigger's destruction).
>
> eventpoll_release
> eventpoll_release_file
> ep_remove
> ep_unregister_pollwait
> ep_remove_wait_queue
>
Yes but fput() calls eventpoll_release() *before* f_op->release(), so
waitqueue_head would be removed before trigger destruction.
> Different roads run into the same Roma city.
You butchered the phrase :)
>
> > Considering these findings, I think we can use the wake_up_pollfree()
> > without contradicting the comment at
> > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/include/linux/wait.h#L253
> > because indeed, cgroup_file_release() and therefore
> > psi_trigger_destroy() are not tied to the file's lifetime.
> >
> > I'm CC'ing Tejun to check if this makes sense to him and
> > cgroup_file_release() is working as expected in this case.
> >
> > Munehisha, if Tejun confirms this is all valid, could you please post
> > a patch replacing wake_up_interruptible() with wake_up_pollfree()? We
> > don't need to worry about wake_up_all() because we have a limitation
> > of one trigger per file descriptor:
> > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/kernel/sched/psi.c#L1419,
> > so there can be only one waiter.
> > Thanks,
> > Suren.
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-20 1:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20230106224859.4123476-1-kamatam@amazon.com>
2023-01-07 8:07 ` Hillf Danton
2023-01-08 22:25 ` Munehisa Kamata
2023-01-08 23:49 ` Hillf Danton
2023-01-10 1:33 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2023-01-10 3:06 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2023-01-12 22:01 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2023-01-13 2:25 ` Munehisa Kamata
2023-01-13 17:52 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2023-01-19 3:06 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2023-01-19 21:01 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2023-01-19 22:25 ` Johannes Weiner
2023-01-20 1:30 ` Hillf Danton
2023-01-20 1:37 ` Suren Baghdasaryan [this message]
2023-01-20 2:46 ` Munehisa Kamata
2023-01-20 2:52 ` Munehisa Kamata
2023-01-20 9:00 ` Hillf Danton
2023-01-20 16:28 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2023-01-21 5:17 ` Hillf Danton
2023-01-22 3:01 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2023-01-20 1:45 ` Munehisa Kamata
2023-02-02 3:00 ` [PATCH] sched/psi: fix " Munehisa Kamata
2023-02-02 4:56 ` Eric Biggers
2023-02-02 21:11 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2023-02-09 17:09 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2023-02-09 18:46 ` Eric Biggers
2023-02-09 19:13 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2023-02-13 23:50 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2023-02-14 7:04 ` [PATCH v2] " Munehisa Kamata
2023-02-14 17:10 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2023-02-14 18:13 ` [PATCH v3] " Munehisa Kamata
2023-02-14 18:28 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2023-02-14 18:29 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2023-02-14 18:55 ` Eric Biggers
2023-02-14 19:13 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2023-02-14 18:37 ` [PATCH v2] " Munehisa Kamata
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAJuCfpF9tCx4mjYFyX+p7qO9qt+rm=UMSdBt-uzaOqE0ThG04g@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=surenb@google.com \
--cc=ebiggers@kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=hdanton@sina.com \
--cc=kamatam@amazon.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mengcc@amazon.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox