Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 16:17:50 +0100
From: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
To: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, 
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com>, 
	Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, 
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, 
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, 
	"Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Convert struct pid count to refcount_t

Since we're just talking about RCU stuff now, adding Paul McKenney to
the thread.

On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 3:37 PM Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 03:57:44AM +0100, Jann Horn wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 3:34 AM Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 01:59:45AM +0100, Jann Horn wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 1:06 AM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 7:53 AM Joel Fernandes (Google)
> > > > > <joel@...lfernandes.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > struct pid's count is an atomic_t field used as a refcount. Use
> > > > > > refcount_t for it which is basically atomic_t but does additional
> > > > > > checking to prevent use-after-free bugs. No change in behavior if
> > > > > > CONFIG_REFCOUNT_FULL=n.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cc: keescook@...omium.org
> > > > > > Cc: kernel-team@...roid.com
> > > > > > Cc: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/pid.c b/kernel/pid.c
> > > > > > index 20881598bdfa..2095c7da644d 100644
> > > > > > --- a/kernel/pid.c
> > > > > > +++ b/kernel/pid.c
> > > > > > @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@
> > > > > >  #include <linux/init_task.h>
> > > > > >  #include <linux/syscalls.h>
> > > > > >  #include <linux/proc_ns.h>
> > > > > > -#include <linux/proc_fs.h>
> > > > > > +#include <linux/refcount.h>
> > > > > >  #include <linux/sched/task.h>
> > > > > >  #include <linux/idr.h>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > @@ -106,8 +106,8 @@ void put_pid(struct pid *pid)
> > > > > >                 return;
> > > > > >
> > > > > >         ns = pid->numbers[pid->level].ns;
> > > > > > -       if ((atomic_read(&pid->count) == 1) ||
> > > > > > -            atomic_dec_and_test(&pid->count)) {
> > > > > > +       if ((refcount_read(&pid->count) == 1) ||
> > > > > > +            refcount_dec_and_test(&pid->count)) {
> > > > >
> > > > > Why is this (and the original code) safe in the face of a race against
> > > > > get_pid()? i.e. shouldn't this only use refcount_dec_and_test()? I
> > > > > don't see this code pattern anywhere else in the kernel.
> > > >
> > > > Semantically, it doesn't make a difference whether you do this or
> > > > leave out the "refcount_read(&pid->count) == 1". If you read a 1 from
> > > > refcount_read(), then you have the only reference to "struct pid", and
> > > > therefore you want to free it. If you don't get a 1, you have to
> > > > atomically drop a reference, which, if someone else is concurrently
> > > > also dropping a reference, may leave you with the last reference (in
> > > > the case where refcount_dec_and_test() returns true), in which case
> > > > you still have to take care of freeing it.
> > >
> > > Also, based on Kees comment, I think it appears to me that get_pid and
> > > put_pid can race in this way in the original code right?
> > >
> > > get_pid                 put_pid
> > >
> > >                         atomic_dec_and_test returns 1
> >
> > This can't happen. get_pid() can only be called on an existing
> > reference. If you are calling get_pid() on an existing reference, and
> > someone else is dropping another reference with put_pid(), then when
> > both functions start running, the refcount must be at least 2.
>
> Sigh, you are right. Ok. I was quite tired last night when I wrote this.
> Obviously, I should have waited a bit and thought it through.
>
> Kees can you describe more the race you had in mind?
>
> > > atomic_inc
> > >                         kfree
> > >
> > > deref pid /* boom */
> > > -------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > I think get_pid needs to call atomic_inc_not_zero() and put_pid should
> > > not test for pid->count == 1 as condition for freeing, but rather just do
> > > atomic_dec_and_test. So something like the following diff. (And I see a
> > > similar pattern used in drivers/net/mac.c)
> >
> > get_pid() can only be called when you already have a refcounted
> > reference; in other words, when the reference count is at least one.
> > The lifetime management of struct pid differs from the lifetime
> > management of most other objects in the kernel; the usual patterns
> > don't quite apply here.
> >
> > Look at put_pid(): When the refcount has reached zero, there is no RCU
> > grace period (unlike most other objects with RCU-managed lifetimes).
> > Instead, free_pid() has an RCU grace period *before* it invokes
> > delayed_put_pid() to drop a reference; and free_pid() is also the
> > function that removes a PID from the namespace's IDR, and it is used
> > by __change_pid() when a task loses its reference on a PID.
> >
> > In other words: Most refcounted objects with RCU guarantee that the
> > object waits for a grace period after its refcount has reached zero;
> > and during the grace period, the refcount is zero and you're not
> > allowed to increment it again.
>
> Can you give an example of this "most refcounted objects with RCU" usecase?
> I could not find any good examples of such. I want to document this pattern
> and possibly submit to Documentation/RCU.

E.g. struct posix_acl is a relatively straightforward example:
posix_acl_release() is a wrapper around refcount_dec_and_test(); if
the refcount has dropped to zero, the object is released after an RCU
grace period using kfree_rcu().
get_cached_acl() takes an RCU read lock, does rcu_dereference() [with
a missing __rcu annotation, grmbl], and attempts to take a reference
with refcount_inc_not_zero().

> > But for struct pid, the guarantee is
> > instead that there is an RCU grace period after it has been removed
> > from the IDRs and the task, and during the grace period, refcounting
> > is guaranteed to still work normally.
>
> Ok, thanks. Here I think in scrappy but simple pseudo code form, the struct
> pid flow is something like (replaced "pid" with data");
>
> get_data:
>         atomic_inc(data->refcount);
>
> some_user_of_data:
>         rcu_read_lock();
>         From X, obtain a ptr to data using rcu_dereference.
>         get_data(data);
>         rcu_read_unlock();
>
> free_data:
>         remove all references to data in all places in X
>         call_rcu(put_data)
>
> put_data:
>         if (atomic_dec_and_test(data->refcount)) {
>                 free(data);
>         }
>
> create_data:
>         data = alloc(..)
>         atomic_set(data->refcount, 1);
>         set pointers to data in X.
>
> > > pud_pid to avoid such a race.
> > >
> > > ---8<-----------------------
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/pid.h b/include/linux/pid.h
> > > index 8cb86d377ff5..3d79834e3180 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/pid.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/pid.h
> > > @@ -69,8 +69,8 @@ extern struct pid init_struct_pid;
> > >
> > >  static inline struct pid *get_pid(struct pid *pid)
> > >  {
> > > -       if (pid)
> > > -               refcount_inc(&pid->count);
> > > +       if (!pid || !refcount_inc_not_zero(&pid->count))
> > > +               return NULL;
> > >         return pid;
> > >  }
> >
> > Nope, this is wrong. Once the refcount is zero, the object goes away,
> > refcount_inc_not_zero() makes no sense here.
>
> Yeah ok, I think what you meant here is that references to the object from
> all places go away before the grace period starts, so a get_pid on an object
> with refcount of zero is impossible since there's no way to *get* to that
> object after the grace-period ends.
>
> So, yes you are right that refcount_inc is all that's needed.
>
> Also note to the on looker, the original patch I sent is not wrong, that
> still applies and is correct. We are just discussing here any possible issues
> with the *existing* code.
>
> thanks!
>
>  - Joel
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.