Re: [PATCH] mm: hugetlb: fix UAF in hugetlb_handle_userfault

[John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>]

On 9/21/22 16:57, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 09/21/22 10:48, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>> On 09/21/22 16:34, Liu Shixin wrote:
>>> The vma_lock and hugetlb_fault_mutex are dropped before handling
>>> userfault and reacquire them again after handle_userfault(), but
>>> reacquire the vma_lock could lead to UAF[1] due to the following
>>> race,
>>>
>>> hugetlb_fault
>>>   hugetlb_no_page
>>>     /*unlock vma_lock */
>>>     hugetlb_handle_userfault
>>>       handle_userfault
>>>         /* unlock mm->mmap_lock*/
>>>                                            vm_mmap_pgoff
>>>                                              do_mmap
>>>                                                mmap_region
>>>                                                  munmap_vma_range
>>>                                                    /* clean old vma */
>>>         /* lock vma_lock again  <--- UAF */
>>>     /* unlock vma_lock */
>>>
>>> Since the vma_lock will unlock immediately after hugetlb_handle_userfault(),
>>> let's drop the unneeded lock and unlock in hugetlb_handle_userfault() to fix
>>> the issue.
>>
>> Thank you very much!
>>
>> When I saw this report, the obvious fix was to do something like what you have
>> done below.  That looks fine with a few minor comments.
>>
>> One question I have not yet answered is, "Does this same issue apply to
>> follow_hugetlb_page()?".  I believe it does.  follow_hugetlb_page calls
>> hugetlb_fault which could result in the fault being processed by userfaultfd.
>> If we experience the race above, then the associated vma could no longer be
>> valid when returning from hugetlb_fault.  follow_hugetlb_page and callers
>> have a flag (locked) to deal with dropping mmap lock.  However, I am not sure
>> if it is handled correctly WRT userfaultfd.  I think this needs to be answered
>> before fixing.  And, if the follow_hugetlb_page code needs to be fixed it
>> should be done at the same time.
>>
> 
> To at least verify this code path, I added userfaultfd handling to the gup_test
> program in kernel selftests.  When doing basic gup test on a hugetlb page in

Just for those of us who are easily confused by userfaultfd cases, can you show
what that patch is? It would help me understand this a little faster.

Actually I'm expecting that Peter can easily answer this whole thing. :)

thanks,

-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA