The vma_lock and hugetlb_fault_mutex are dropped before handling
userfault and reacquire them again after handle_userfault(), but
reacquire the vma_lock could lead to UAF[1,2] due to the following
race,
hugetlb_fault
hugetlb_no_page
/*unlock vma_lock */
hugetlb_handle_userfault
handle_userfault
/* unlock mm->mmap_lock*/
vm_mmap_pgoff
do_mmap
mmap_region
munmap_vma_range
/* clean old vma */
/* lock vma_lock again <--- UAF */
/* unlock vma_lock */
Since the vma_lock will unlock immediately after hugetlb_handle_userfault(),
let's drop the unneeded lock and unlock in hugetlb_handle_userfault() to fix
the issue.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/[email protected]/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/[email protected]/
Reported-by: [email protected]
Reported-by: Liu Zixian <[email protected]>
Fixes: 1a1aad8a9b7b ("userfaultfd: hugetlbfs: add userfaultfd hugetlb hook")
CC: [email protected] # 4.14+
Signed-off-by: Liu Shixin <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Mike Kravetz <[email protected]>
---
v1->v2: add reported-by and link [1].
v2->v3: add comment to explain why unlock in hugetlb_no_page.
mm/hugetlb.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++--------------------
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
index 9b8526d27c29..38f3c7097e89 100644
--- a/mm/hugetlb.c
+++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
@@ -5489,7 +5489,6 @@ static inline vm_fault_t hugetlb_handle_userfault(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
unsigned long addr,
unsigned long reason)
{
- vm_fault_t ret;
u32 hash;
struct vm_fault vmf = {
.vma = vma,
@@ -5507,18 +5506,14 @@ static inline vm_fault_t hugetlb_handle_userfault(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
};
/*
- * vma_lock and hugetlb_fault_mutex must be
- * dropped before handling userfault. Reacquire
- * after handling fault to make calling code simpler.
+ * vma_lock and hugetlb_fault_mutex must be dropped before handling
+ * userfault. Also mmap_lock could be dropped due to handling
+ * userfault, any vma operation should be careful from here.
*/
hugetlb_vma_unlock_read(vma);
hash = hugetlb_fault_mutex_hash(mapping, idx);
mutex_unlock(&hugetlb_fault_mutex_table[hash]);
- ret = handle_userfault(&vmf, reason);
- mutex_lock(&hugetlb_fault_mutex_table[hash]);
- hugetlb_vma_lock_read(vma);
-
- return ret;
+ return handle_userfault(&vmf, reason);
}
static vm_fault_t hugetlb_no_page(struct mm_struct *mm,
@@ -5537,6 +5532,7 @@ static vm_fault_t hugetlb_no_page(struct mm_struct *mm,
unsigned long haddr = address & huge_page_mask(h);
bool new_page, new_pagecache_page = false;
bool reserve_alloc = false;
+ u32 hash = hugetlb_fault_mutex_hash(mapping, idx);
/*
* Currently, we are forced to kill the process in the event the
@@ -5547,7 +5543,7 @@ static vm_fault_t hugetlb_no_page(struct mm_struct *mm,
if (is_vma_resv_set(vma, HPAGE_RESV_UNMAPPED)) {
pr_warn_ratelimited("PID %d killed due to inadequate hugepage pool\n",
current->pid);
- return ret;
+ goto out;
}
/*
@@ -5561,12 +5557,10 @@ static vm_fault_t hugetlb_no_page(struct mm_struct *mm,
if (idx >= size)
goto out;
/* Check for page in userfault range */
- if (userfaultfd_missing(vma)) {
- ret = hugetlb_handle_userfault(vma, mapping, idx,
+ if (userfaultfd_missing(vma))
+ return hugetlb_handle_userfault(vma, mapping, idx,
flags, haddr, address,
VM_UFFD_MISSING);
- goto out;
- }
page = alloc_huge_page(vma, haddr, 0);
if (IS_ERR(page)) {
@@ -5634,10 +5628,9 @@ static vm_fault_t hugetlb_no_page(struct mm_struct *mm,
if (userfaultfd_minor(vma)) {
unlock_page(page);
put_page(page);
- ret = hugetlb_handle_userfault(vma, mapping, idx,
+ return hugetlb_handle_userfault(vma, mapping, idx,
flags, haddr, address,
VM_UFFD_MINOR);
- goto out;
}
}
@@ -5695,6 +5688,8 @@ static vm_fault_t hugetlb_no_page(struct mm_struct *mm,
unlock_page(page);
out:
+ hugetlb_vma_unlock_read(vma);
+ mutex_unlock(&hugetlb_fault_mutex_table[hash]);
return ret;
backout:
@@ -5792,11 +5787,13 @@ vm_fault_t hugetlb_fault(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
entry = huge_ptep_get(ptep);
/* PTE markers should be handled the same way as none pte */
- if (huge_pte_none_mostly(entry)) {
- ret = hugetlb_no_page(mm, vma, mapping, idx, address, ptep,
+ if (huge_pte_none_mostly(entry))
+ /*
+ * hugetlb_no_page will drop vma lock and hugetlb fault
+ * mutex internally, which make us return immediately.
+ */
+ return hugetlb_no_page(mm, vma, mapping, idx, address, ptep,
entry, flags);
- goto out_mutex;
- }
ret = 0;
--
2.25.1
On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 12:21:13 +0800 Liu Shixin <[email protected]> wrote:
> The vma_lock and hugetlb_fault_mutex are dropped before handling
> userfault and reacquire them again after handle_userfault(), but
> reacquire the vma_lock could lead to UAF[1,2] due to the following
> race,
>
> hugetlb_fault
> hugetlb_no_page
> /*unlock vma_lock */
> hugetlb_handle_userfault
> handle_userfault
> /* unlock mm->mmap_lock*/
> vm_mmap_pgoff
> do_mmap
> mmap_region
> munmap_vma_range
> /* clean old vma */
> /* lock vma_lock again <--- UAF */
> /* unlock vma_lock */
>
> Since the vma_lock will unlock immediately after hugetlb_handle_userfault(),
> let's drop the unneeded lock and unlock in hugetlb_handle_userfault() to fix
> the issue.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/[email protected]/
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/[email protected]/
> Reported-by: [email protected]
> Reported-by: Liu Zixian <[email protected]>
> Fixes: 1a1aad8a9b7b ("userfaultfd: hugetlbfs: add userfaultfd hugetlb hook")
> CC: [email protected] # 4.14+
Patch is against mm-unstable, which isn't appropriate for a backport.
Could you please something against current -linus (which will be more
backportable), then I'll figure out the fallout on mm-unstable.
Thanks.
On 2022/9/24 8:05, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 12:21:13 +0800 Liu Shixin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The vma_lock and hugetlb_fault_mutex are dropped before handling
>> userfault and reacquire them again after handle_userfault(), but
>> reacquire the vma_lock could lead to UAF[1,2] due to the following
>> race,
...
> Patch is against mm-unstable, which isn't appropriate for a backport.
> Could you please something against current -linus (which will be more
> backportable), then I'll figure out the fallout on mm-unstable.
>
> Thanks.
> .
I resend v4 rebased on current -linus.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
Thanks,