Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 25 Mar 2019 22:49:59 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        syzbot <syzbot+7a8ba368b47fdefca61e@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: KASAN: use-after-free Read in path_lookupat
Message-ID: <20190325224959.GQ2217@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <0000000000006946d2057bbd0eef@google.com>
 <CAHk-=wiijJMTw=nTj_ED+YWMCrvHzh3ezfVYRxvzcW6+trgyPA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190325045744.GK2217@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <CAHk-=wg4iJsMHBzK52WzP+5_92HbwvX_vh_s4mMUuN0FJGdM5A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=whJ4M5FegOLvnjUtJ0+pHv4L8UNFt+9jJDhox3Ada8kwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190325211405.GP2217@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <CAHk-=wj+-e=X9cvvNwc5+QuvBOyYT7OtZTBzy-Wg8zGrUwxSbw@mail.gmail.com>
 <f4eccb87-1ea2-c0d5-19db-d638f2c5aa57@iogearbox.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <f4eccb87-1ea2-c0d5-19db-d638f2c5aa57@iogearbox.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 11:04:53PM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:

> +static void bpf_destroy_inode_deferred(struct rcu_head *head)
> +{
> +	struct inode *inode = container_of(head, struct inode, i_rcu);
> +	enum bpf_type type;
> +
> +	if (S_ISLNK(inode->i_mode))
> +		kfree(inode->i_link);
> +	if (!bpf_inode_type(inode, &type))
> +		bpf_any_put(inode->i_private, type);
> +	free_inode_nonrcu(inode);
> +}

Umm...  Can bpf_any_put() can be called in that context?  It's going
to run in softirq; if that's OK (I'm not familiar enough with BPF guts
to tell), sure, that's probably the best approach.

Note, BTW, that it's obviously -stable fodder, so any splitting
of ->destroy_inode() would live on top of that fix.