[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 11:57:53 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Use-after-free in __unlock
On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 10:32:37AM -0500, Alex Crichton wrote:
> Hello! I personally work on the rust-lang/rust compiler [1] and one of the
> platforms we run CI for is x86_64 Linux with musl as a libc. We've got a
> longstanding issue [2] of spurious segfaults in musl binaries on our CI, and
> one of our contributors managed to get a stack trace and I think we've tracked
> down the bug!
>
> I believe there's a use-after-free in the `__unlock` function when used with
> threading in musl (still present on master as far as I can tell). The source of
> the unlock function looks like:
>
> void __unlock(volatile int *l)
> {
> if (l[0]) {
> a_store(l, 0);
> if (l[1]) __wake(l, 1, 1);
> }
> }
>
> The problem I believe I'm seeing is that after `a_store` finishes, the memory
> behind the lock, `l`, is deallocated. This means that the later access of
> `l[1]` causes a use after free, and I believe the spurious segfaults we're
> seeing on our CI. The reproduction we've got is the sequence of events:
>
> * Thread A starts thread B
> * Thread A calls `pthread_detach` on the return value of `pthread_create` for
> thread B.
> * The implementation of `pthread_detach` does its business and eventually calls
> `__unlock(t->exitlock)`.
> * Meanwhile, thread B exits.
> * Thread B sees that `t->exitlock` is unlocked and deallocates the `pthread_t`
> memory.
> * Thread a comes back to access `l[1]` (what I think is `t->exitlock[1]` and
> segfaults as this memory has been freed.
Thanks for finding and reporting this. Indeed, __lock and __unlock are
not made safe for use on dynamic-lifetime objects, and I was wrongly
thinking they were only used for static-lifetime ones (various
libc-internal locks).
For infrequently-used locks, which these seem to be, I see no reason
to optimize for contention by having a separate waiter count; simply
having a single atomic int whose states are "unlocked", "locked with
no waiters", and "locked maybe with waiters" is a simple solution and
slightly shrinks the relevant structures anyway. It's possible that
this is the right solution for all places where __lock and __unlock
are used, but we should probably do a review and see which ones might
reasonably be subject to high contention (where spurious FUTEX_WAKE is
very costly).
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
