Patch "futex: Fix potential use-after-free in FUTEX_REQUEUE_PI" has been added to the 4.4-stable tree

This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled

    futex: Fix potential use-after-free in FUTEX_REQUEUE_PI

to the 4.4-stable tree which can be found at:
    http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary

The filename of the patch is:
     futex-fix-potential-use-after-free-in-futex_requeue_pi.patch
and it can be found in the queue-4.4 subdirectory.

If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
please let [off-list ref] know about it.

From c236c8e95a3d395b0494e7108f0d41cf36ec107c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001

From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2017 10:27:18 +0100
Subject: futex: Fix potential use-after-free in FUTEX_REQUEUE_PI

From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>

commit c236c8e95a3d395b0494e7108f0d41cf36ec107c upstream.

While working on the futex code, I stumbled over this potential
use-after-free scenario. Dmitry triggered it later with syzkaller.

pi_mutex is a pointer into pi_state, which we drop the reference on in
unqueue_me_pi(). So any access to that pointer after that is bad.

Since other sites already do rt_mutex_unlock() with hb->lock held, see
for example futex_lock_pi(), simply move the unlock before
unqueue_me_pi().

Reported-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: Darren Hart <redacted>
Cc: juri.lelli@arm.com
Cc: bigeasy@linutronix.de
Cc: xlpang@redhat.com
Cc: rostedt@goodmis.org
Cc: mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com
Cc: jdesfossez@efficios.com
Cc: dvhart@infradead.org
Cc: bristot@redhat.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170304093558.801744246@infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

---
 kernel/futex.c |   20 +++++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

--- a/kernel/futex.c
+++ b/kernel/futex.c

@@ -2690,7 +2690,6 @@ static int futex_wait_requeue_pi(u32 __u
 {
 	struct hrtimer_sleeper timeout, *to = NULL;
 	struct rt_mutex_waiter rt_waiter;
-	struct rt_mutex *pi_mutex = NULL;
 	struct futex_hash_bucket *hb;
 	union futex_key key2 = FUTEX_KEY_INIT;
 	struct futex_q q = futex_q_init;

@@ -2782,6 +2781,8 @@ static int futex_wait_requeue_pi(u32 __u
 			spin_unlock(q.lock_ptr);
 		}
 	} else {
+		struct rt_mutex *pi_mutex;
+
 		/*
 		 * We have been woken up by futex_unlock_pi(), a timeout, or a
 		 * signal.  futex_unlock_pi() will not destroy the lock_ptr nor

@@ -2805,18 +2806,19 @@ static int futex_wait_requeue_pi(u32 __u
 		if (res)
 			ret = (res < 0) ? res : 0;
 
+		/*
+		 * If fixup_pi_state_owner() faulted and was unable to handle
+		 * the fault, unlock the rt_mutex and return the fault to
+		 * userspace.
+		 */
+		if (ret && rt_mutex_owner(pi_mutex) == current)
+			rt_mutex_unlock(pi_mutex);
+
 		/* Unqueue and drop the lock. */
 		unqueue_me_pi(&q);
 	}
 
-	/*
-	 * If fixup_pi_state_owner() faulted and was unable to handle the
-	 * fault, unlock the rt_mutex and return the fault to userspace.
-	 */
-	if (ret == -EFAULT) {
-		if (pi_mutex && rt_mutex_owner(pi_mutex) == current)
-			rt_mutex_unlock(pi_mutex);
-	} else if (ret == -EINTR) {
+	if (ret == -EINTR) {
 		/*
 		 * We've already been requeued, but cannot restart by calling
 		 * futex_lock_pi() directly. We could restart this syscall, but

Patches currently in stable-queue which might be from peterz@infradead.org are

queue-4.4/futex-fix-potential-use-after-free-in-futex_requeue_pi.patch
queue-4.4/futex-add-missing-error-handling-to-futex_requeue_pi.patch
queue-4.4/x86-perf-fix-cr4.pce-propagation-to-use-active_mm-instead-of-mm.patch