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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190701173042.221453-1-henryburns@google.com> <CAMJBoFPbRcdZ+NnX17OQ-sOcCwe+ZAsxcDJoR0KDkgBY9WXvpg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMJBoFPbRcdZ+NnX17OQ-sOcCwe+ZAsxcDJoR0KDkgBY9WXvpg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Henry Burns <henryburns@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 2 Jul 2019 09:56:34 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGQXPTjX=7aD9MQAs2kJthFvPdd3x8Nh53oc=wZCXH_dvDJ=Vg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/z3fold: Fix z3fold_buddy_slots use after free
To:     Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@gmail.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Vitaly Vul <vitaly.vul@sony.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Xidong Wang <wangxidong_97@163.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
        Jonathan Adams <jwadams@google.com>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:45 AM Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Henry,
>
> On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 8:31 PM Henry Burns <henryburns@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > Running z3fold stress testing with address sanitization
> > showed zhdr->slots was being used after it was freed.
> >
> > z3fold_free(z3fold_pool, handle)
> >   free_handle(handle)
> >     kmem_cache_free(pool->c_handle, zhdr->slots)
> >   release_z3fold_page_locked_list(kref)
> >     __release_z3fold_page(zhdr, true)
> >       zhdr_to_pool(zhdr)
> >         slots_to_pool(zhdr->slots)  *BOOM*
>
> Thanks for looking into this. I'm not entirely sure I'm all for
> splitting free_handle() but let me think about it.
>
> > Instead we split free_handle into two functions, release_handle()
> > and free_slots(). We use release_handle() in place of free_handle(),
> > and use free_slots() to call kmem_cache_free() after
> > __release_z3fold_page() is done.
>
> A little less intrusive solution would be to move backlink to pool
> from slots back to z3fold_header. Looks like it was a bad idea from
> the start.
>
> Best regards,
>    Vitaly

We still want z3fold pages to be movable though. Wouldn't moving
the backink to the pool from slots to z3fold_header prevent us from
enabling migration?