On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 06:55:56PM +0800, ruanjinjie wrote:
> In emulation_proc_handler(), read and write operations are performed on
> insn->current_mode. In the concurrency scenario, mutex only protects
> writing insn->current_mode, and not protects the read. Suppose there are
> two concurrent tasks, task1 updates insn->current_mode to INSN_EMULATE
> in the critical section, the prev_mode of task2 is still the old data
> INSN_UNDEF of insn->current_mode. As a result, two tasks call
> update_insn_emulation_mode twice with prev_mode = INSN_UNDEF and
> current_mode = INSN_EMULATE, then call register_emulation_hooks twice,
> resulting in a list_add double problem.
>
> Call trace:
> __list_add_valid+0xd8/0xe4
> register_undef_hook+0x94/0x13c
> update_insn_emulation_mode+0xd0/0x12c
> emulation_proc_handler+0xd8/0xf4
> proc_sys_call_handler+0x140/0x250
> proc_sys_write+0x1c/0x2c
> new_sync_write+0xec/0x18c
> vfs_write+0x214/0x2ac
> ksys_write+0x70/0xfc
> __arm64_sys_write+0x24/0x30
> el0_svc_common.constprop.0+0x7c/0x1bc
> do_el0_svc+0x2c/0x94
> el0_svc+0x20/0x30
> el0_sync_handler+0xb0/0xb4
> el0_sync+0x160/0x180
The version queued in the arm64 for-next/core branch no longer has the list
manipulation, but we do need to fix this for stable, and there is a remaining
race on reading insn->current_mode in emulation_proc_handler().
> Fixes: af483947d472 ("arm64: fix oops in concurrently setting insn_emulation sysctls")
> Signed-off-by: ruanjinjie <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/armv8_deprecated.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/armv8_deprecated.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/armv8_deprecated.c
> index fb0e7c7b2e20..d33e5d9e6990 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/armv8_deprecated.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/armv8_deprecated.c
> @@ -208,10 +208,12 @@ static int emulation_proc_handler(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
> loff_t *ppos)
> {
> int ret = 0;
> - struct insn_emulation *insn = container_of(table->data, struct insn_emulation, current_mode);
> - enum insn_emulation_mode prev_mode = insn->current_mode;
> + struct insn_emulation *insn;
> + enum insn_emulation_mode prev_mode;
>
> mutex_lock(&insn_emulation_mutex);
> + insn = container_of(table->data, struct insn_emulation, current_mode);
> + prev_mode = insn->current_mode;
> ret = proc_dointvec_minmax(table, write, buffer, lenp, ppos);
We don't strictly need to move the container_of(), but it makes no odds either
way, and this looks good to me:
Acked-by: Mark Rutland <[email protected]>
Mark.
>
> if (ret || !write || prev_mode == insn->current_mode)
> --
> 2.25.1
>
On 2022/12/9 19:09, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 06:55:56PM +0800, ruanjinjie wrote:
>> In emulation_proc_handler(), read and write operations are performed on
>> insn->current_mode. In the concurrency scenario, mutex only protects
>> writing insn->current_mode, and not protects the read. Suppose there are
>> two concurrent tasks, task1 updates insn->current_mode to INSN_EMULATE
>> in the critical section, the prev_mode of task2 is still the old data
>> INSN_UNDEF of insn->current_mode. As a result, two tasks call
>> update_insn_emulation_mode twice with prev_mode = INSN_UNDEF and
>> current_mode = INSN_EMULATE, then call register_emulation_hooks twice,
>> resulting in a list_add double problem.
>>
>> Call trace:
>> __list_add_valid+0xd8/0xe4
>> register_undef_hook+0x94/0x13c
>> update_insn_emulation_mode+0xd0/0x12c
>> emulation_proc_handler+0xd8/0xf4
>> proc_sys_call_handler+0x140/0x250
>> proc_sys_write+0x1c/0x2c
>> new_sync_write+0xec/0x18c
>> vfs_write+0x214/0x2ac
>> ksys_write+0x70/0xfc
>> __arm64_sys_write+0x24/0x30
>> el0_svc_common.constprop.0+0x7c/0x1bc
>> do_el0_svc+0x2c/0x94
>> el0_svc+0x20/0x30
>> el0_sync_handler+0xb0/0xb4
>> el0_sync+0x160/0x180
>
> The version queued in the arm64 for-next/core branch no longer has the list
> manipulation, but we do need to fix this for stable, and there is a remaining
> race on reading insn->current_mode in emulation_proc_handler().
Hi Mark, Should I send this patch to linux-stable?
>
>> Fixes: af483947d472 ("arm64: fix oops in concurrently setting insn_emulation sysctls")
>> Signed-off-by: ruanjinjie <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/kernel/armv8_deprecated.c | 6 ++++--
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/armv8_deprecated.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/armv8_deprecated.c
>> index fb0e7c7b2e20..d33e5d9e6990 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/armv8_deprecated.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/armv8_deprecated.c
>> @@ -208,10 +208,12 @@ static int emulation_proc_handler(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
>> loff_t *ppos)
>> {
>> int ret = 0;
>> - struct insn_emulation *insn = container_of(table->data, struct insn_emulation, current_mode);
>> - enum insn_emulation_mode prev_mode = insn->current_mode;
>> + struct insn_emulation *insn;
>> + enum insn_emulation_mode prev_mode;
>>
>> mutex_lock(&insn_emulation_mutex);
>> + insn = container_of(table->data, struct insn_emulation, current_mode);
>> + prev_mode = insn->current_mode;
>> ret = proc_dointvec_minmax(table, write, buffer, lenp, ppos);
>
> We don't strictly need to move the container_of(), but it makes no odds either
> way, and this looks good to me:
>
> Acked-by: Mark Rutland <[email protected]>
>
> Mark.
>
>>
>> if (ret || !write || prev_mode == insn->current_mode)
>> --
>> 2.25.1
>>
>