On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 4:18 AM Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi
[off-list ref] wrote:
 On 11/6/21 12:48 am, Daniel Vetter wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 11:21:39PM +0800, Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi wrote:

quoted

On 10/6/21 6:10 pm, Daniel Vetter wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 05:21:19PM +0800, Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi wrote:

quoted

This patch eliminates the following smatch warning:
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_auth.c:320 drm_master_release() warn: unlocked access 'master' (line 318) expected lock '&dev->master_mutex'

The 'file_priv->master' field should be protected by the mutex lock to
'&dev->master_mutex'. This is because other processes can concurrently
modify this field and free the current 'file_priv->master'
pointer. This could result in a use-after-free error when 'master' is
dereferenced in subsequent function calls to
'drm_legacy_lock_master_cleanup()' or to 'drm_lease_revoke()'.

An example of a scenario that would produce this error can be seen
from a similar bug in 'drm_getunique()' that was reported by Syzbot:
https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=148d2f1dfac64af52ffd27b661981a540724f803

In the Syzbot report, another process concurrently acquired the
device's master mutex in 'drm_setmaster_ioctl()', then overwrote
'fpriv->master' in 'drm_new_set_master()'. The old value of
'fpriv->master' was subsequently freed before the mutex was unlocked.

Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi <redacted>

Thanks a lot. I've done an audit of this code, and I found another
potential problem in drm_is_current_master. The callers from drm_auth.c
hold the dev->master_mutex, but all the external ones dont. I think we
need to split this into a _locked function for use within drm_auth.c, and
the exported one needs to grab the dev->master_mutex while it's checking
master status. Ofc there will still be races, those are ok, but right now
we run the risk of use-after free problems in drm_lease_owner.

Are you up to do that fix too?

Hi Daniel,

Thanks for the pointer, I'm definitely up for it!

quoted

I think the drm_lease.c code also needs an audit, there we'd need to make
sure that we hold hold either the lock or a full master reference to avoid
the use-after-free issues here.

I'd be happy to look into drm_lease.c as well.

quoted

Patch merged to drm-misc-fixes with cc: stable.
-Daniel

quoted

---
   drivers/gpu/drm/drm_auth.c | 3 ++-
   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_auth.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_auth.c
index f00e5abdbbf4..b59b26a71ad5 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_auth.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_auth.c

@@ -315,9 +315,10 @@ int drm_master_open(struct drm_file *file_priv)
   void drm_master_release(struct drm_file *file_priv)
   {
           struct drm_device *dev = file_priv->minor->dev;
-  struct drm_master *master = file_priv->master;
+  struct drm_master *master;

           mutex_lock(&dev->master_mutex);
+  master = file_priv->master;
           if (file_priv->magic)
                   idr_remove(&file_priv->master->magic_map, file_priv->magic);
--

2.25.1

 From what I can see, there are other places in the kernel that could use the
_locked version of drm_is_current_master as well, such as drm_mode_getfb in
drm_framebuffer.c. I'll take a closer look, and if the changes make sense
I'll prepare a patch series for them.

Oh maybe we have a naming confusion: the _locked is the one where the
caller must grab the lock already, whereas drm_is_current_master would
grab the master_mutex internally to do the check. The one in
drm_framebuffer.c looks like it'd need the internal one since there's no
other need to grab the master_mutex.
-Daniel

Ah ok got it, I think I confused myself earlier.

Just to check, may I include you in a Reported-by: tag?

Sure.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
Linux-kernel-mentees mailing list
Linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-kernel-mentees