arm64/v4.16-rc1: KASAN: use-after-free Read in finish_task_switch
From: mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com (Mathieu Desnoyers)
Date: 2018-02-16 00:01:44
Also in:
lkml
Subsystem:
the rest · Maintainer:
Linus Torvalds
----- On Feb 15, 2018, at 5:08 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers mathieu.desnoyers at efficios.com wrote:
----- On Feb 15, 2018, at 1:21 PM, Will Deacon will.deacon at arm.com wrote:quoted
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 05:47:54PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:quoted
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 02:22:39PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:quoted
Instead, we've come up with a more plausible sequence that can in theory happen on a single CPU: <task foo calls exit()> do_exit exit_mmIf this is the last task of the process, we would expect: mm_count == 1 mm_users == 1 at this point.quoted
mmgrab(mm); // foo's mm has count +1 BUG_ON(mm != current->active_mm); task_lock(current); current->mm = NULL; task_unlock(current);So the whole active_mm is basically the last 'real' mm, and its purpose is to avoid switch_mm() between user tasks and kernel tasks. A kernel task has !->mm. We do this by incrementing mm_count when switching from user to kernel task and decrementing when switching from kernel to user. What exit_mm() does is change a user task into a 'kernel' task. So it should increment mm_count to mirror the context switch. I suspect this is what the mmgrab() in exit_mm() is for.quoted
<irq and ctxsw to kthread> context_switch(prev=foo, next=kthread) mm = next->mm; oldmm = prev->active_mm; if (!mm) { // True for kthread next->active_mm = oldmm; mmgrab(oldmm); // foo's mm has count +2 } if (!prev->mm) { // True for foo rq->prev_mm = oldmm; } finish_task_switch mm = rq->prev_mm; if (mm) { // True (foo's mm) mmdrop(mm); // foo's mm has count +1 } [...] <ctxsw to task bar> context_switch(prev=kthread, next=bar) mm = next->mm; oldmm = prev->active_mm; // foo's mm! if (!prev->mm) { // True for kthread rq->prev_mm = oldmm; } finish_task_switch mm = rq->prev_mm; if (mm) { // True (foo's mm) mmdrop(mm); // foo's mm has count +0The context switch into the next user task will then decrement. At this point foo no longer has a reference to its mm, except on the stack.quoted
} [...] <ctxsw back to task foo> context_switch(prev=bar, next=foo) mm = next->mm; oldmm = prev->active_mm; if (!mm) { // True for foo next->active_mm = oldmm; // This is bar's mm mmgrab(oldmm); // bar's mm has count +1 } [return back to exit_mm]Enter mm_users, this counts the number of tasks associated with the mm. We start with 1 in mm_init(), and when it drops to 0, we decrement mm_count. Since we also start with mm_count == 1, this would appear consistent. mmput() // --mm_users == 0, which then results in:quoted
mmdrop(mm); // foo's mm has count -1In the above case, that's the very last reference to the mm, and since we started out with mm_count == 1, this -1 makes 0 and we do the actual free.quoted
At this point, we've got an imbalanced count on the mm and could free it prematurely as seen in the KASAN log.I'm not sure I see premature. At this point mm_users==0, mm_count==0 and we freed mm and there is no further use of the on-stack mm pointer and foo no longer has a pointer to it in either ->mm or ->active_mm. It's well and proper dead.quoted
A subsequent context-switch away from foo would therefore result in a use-after-free.At the above point, foo no longer has a reference to mm, we cleared ->mm early, and the context switch to bar cleared ->active_mm. The switch back into foo then results with foo->active_mm == bar->mm, which is fine.Bugger, you're right. When we switch off foo after freeing the mm, we'll actually access it's active mm which points to bar's mm. So whilst this can explain part of the kasan splat, it doesn't explain the actual use-after-free. More head-scratching required :(My current theory: do_exit() gets preempted after having set current->mm to NULL, and after having issued mmput(), which brings the mm_count down to 0. Unfortunately, if the scheduler switches from a userspace thread to a kernel thread, context_switch() loads prev->active_mm which still points to the now-freed mm, mmgrab the mm, and eventually does mmdrop in finish_task_switch(). If my understanding is correct, the following patch should help. The idea is to keep a reference on the mm_count until after we are sure the scheduler cannot schedule the task anymore. What I'm not sure is where exactly in do_exit() are we sure the task cannot ever be preempted anymore ?
Actually, it's the preempt_disable() at the end of do_exit() I was looking for. The following patch moves the mmdrop() right after preempte_disable. In my previous patch, the mmdrop() after do_task_dead (which is noreturn) was rather dumb (leak).
diff --git a/kernel/exit.c b/kernel/exit.c
index 995453d..2804655 100644
--- a/kernel/exit.c
+++ b/kernel/exit.c@@ -764,6 +764,7 @@ void __noreturn do_exit(long code) { struct task_struct *tsk = current; int group_dead; + struct mm_struct *mm; profile_task_exit(tsk); kcov_task_exit(tsk);
@@ -849,6 +850,10 @@ void __noreturn do_exit(long code) tsk->exit_code = code; taskstats_exit(tsk, group_dead); + mm = current->mm; + if (mm) + mmgrab(mm); + exit_mm(); if (group_dead)
@@ -913,6 +918,8 @@ void __noreturn do_exit(long code) check_stack_usage(); preempt_disable(); + if (mm) + mmdrop(mm); if (tsk->nr_dirtied) __this_cpu_add(dirty_throttle_leaks, tsk->nr_dirtied); exit_rcu();
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com