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: <000000000000328b2905951a7667@google.com> <CANpmjNPoBBJgMKLEAXs+bPhitF+WygseHgTkSJsuiK8WcsB==g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20191017181709.GA5312@avx2> <CANpmjNOkpOQsmQKYLAJ1iuj6UYJqyY6PRaYXSyWbF=omfnj6Uw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACT4Y+YE8BtDJvbPfgDQq-HVwiPkg-7CTD1x8xCzeQTPuNG65Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACT4Y+YE8BtDJvbPfgDQq-HVwiPkg-7CTD1x8xCzeQTPuNG65Q@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 24 Oct 2019 10:35:32 +0200
Message-ID: <CACT4Y+bnjOCAMwDpSUDRv5NBRffqrU69F=+Y-kXBMB7ZJYb6ew@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: KCSAN: data-race in task_dump_owner / task_dump_owner
To:     Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Cc:     Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
        syzbot <syzbot+e392f8008a294fdf8891@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com>,
        Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
        syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 7:06 PM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 8:33 PM 'Marco Elver' via syzkaller-bugs
> <syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 at 20:17, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 02:56:47PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 at 14:36, syzbot
> > > > <syzbot+e392f8008a294fdf8891@syzkaller.appspotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > >
> > > > > syzbot found the following crash on:
> > > > >
> > > > > HEAD commit:    d724f94f x86, kcsan: Enable KCSAN for x86
> > > > > git tree:       https://github.com/google/ktsan.git kcsan
> > > > > console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=17884db3600000
> > > > > kernel config:  https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=c0906aa620713d80
> > > > > dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=e392f8008a294fdf8891
> > > > > compiler:       gcc (GCC) 9.0.0 20181231 (experimental)
> > > > >
> > > > > Unfortunately, I don't have any reproducer for this crash yet.
> > > > >
> > > > > IMPORTANT: if you fix the bug, please add the following tag to the commit:
> > > > > Reported-by: syzbot+e392f8008a294fdf8891@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > ==================================================================
> > > > > BUG: KCSAN: data-race in task_dump_owner / task_dump_owner
> > > > >
> > > > > write to 0xffff8881255bb7fc of 4 bytes by task 7804 on cpu 0:
> > > > >   task_dump_owner+0xd8/0x260 fs/proc/base.c:1742
> > > > >   pid_update_inode+0x3c/0x70 fs/proc/base.c:1818
> > > > >   pid_revalidate+0x91/0xd0 fs/proc/base.c:1841
> > > > >   d_revalidate fs/namei.c:765 [inline]
> > > > >   d_revalidate fs/namei.c:762 [inline]
> > > > >   lookup_fast+0x7cb/0x7e0 fs/namei.c:1613
> > > > >   walk_component+0x6d/0xe80 fs/namei.c:1804
> > > > >   link_path_walk.part.0+0x5d3/0xa90 fs/namei.c:2139
> > > > >   link_path_walk fs/namei.c:2070 [inline]
> > > > >   path_openat+0x14f/0x3530 fs/namei.c:3532
> > > > >   do_filp_open+0x11e/0x1b0 fs/namei.c:3563
> > > > >   do_sys_open+0x3b3/0x4f0 fs/open.c:1089
> > > > >   __do_sys_open fs/open.c:1107 [inline]
> > > > >   __se_sys_open fs/open.c:1102 [inline]
> > > > >   __x64_sys_open+0x55/0x70 fs/open.c:1102
> > > > >   do_syscall_64+0xcf/0x2f0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:296
> > > > >   entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
> > > > >
> > > > > write to 0xffff8881255bb7fc of 4 bytes by task 7813 on cpu 1:
> > > > >   task_dump_owner+0xd8/0x260 fs/proc/base.c:1742
> > > > >   pid_update_inode+0x3c/0x70 fs/proc/base.c:1818
> > > > >   pid_revalidate+0x91/0xd0 fs/proc/base.c:1841
> > > > >   d_revalidate fs/namei.c:765 [inline]
> > > > >   d_revalidate fs/namei.c:762 [inline]
> > > > >   lookup_fast+0x7cb/0x7e0 fs/namei.c:1613
> > > > >   walk_component+0x6d/0xe80 fs/namei.c:1804
> > > > >   lookup_last fs/namei.c:2271 [inline]
> > > > >   path_lookupat.isra.0+0x13a/0x5a0 fs/namei.c:2316
> > > > >   filename_lookup+0x145/0x2d0 fs/namei.c:2346
> > > > >   user_path_at_empty+0x4c/0x70 fs/namei.c:2606
> > > > >   user_path_at include/linux/namei.h:60 [inline]
> > > > >   vfs_statx+0xd9/0x190 fs/stat.c:187
> > > > >   vfs_stat include/linux/fs.h:3188 [inline]
> > > > >   __do_sys_newstat+0x51/0xb0 fs/stat.c:341
> > > > >   __se_sys_newstat fs/stat.c:337 [inline]
> > > > >   __x64_sys_newstat+0x3a/0x50 fs/stat.c:337
> > > > >   do_syscall_64+0xcf/0x2f0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:296
> > > > >   entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
> > > > >
> > > > > Reported by Kernel Concurrency Sanitizer on:
> > > > > CPU: 1 PID: 7813 Comm: ps Not tainted 5.3.0+ #0
> > > > > Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS
> > > > > Google 01/01/2011
> > > > > ==================================================================
> > > >
> > > > My understanding is, that for every access to /proc/<pid>,
> > > > d_revalidate is called, and /proc-fs implementation simply says that
> > > > pid_revalidate always revalidates by rewriting uid/gid because "owning
> > > > task may have performed a setuid(), etc." presumably so every access
> > > > to a /proc/<pid> entry always has the right uid/gid (in effect
> > > > updating /proc/<pid> lazily via d_revalidate).
> > > >
> > > > Is it possible that one of the tasks above could be preempted after
> > > > doing its writes to *ruid/*rgid, another thread writing some other
> > > > values (after setuid / seteuid), and then the preempted thread seeing
> > > > the other values? Assertion here should never fail:
> > > > === TASK 1 ===
> > > > | seteuid(1000);
> > > > | seteuid(0);
> > > > | stat("/proc/<pid-of-task-1>", &fstat);
> > > > | assert(fstat.st_uid == 0);
> > > > === TASK 2 ===
> > > > | stat("/proc/<pid-of-task-1>", ...);
> > >
> > > Is it the same as
> > > pid_revalidate() snapshots (uid,gid) correctly
> > > but writeback is done in any order?
> >
> > Yes, I think so. Snapshot is done in RCU reader critical section, but
> > the writes can race with another thread. Is there logic that ensures
> > this doesn't lead to the observable outcome above?
>
>
> I found the case where this leads to an observable bug.
> common_perm_cond() in security/apparmor/lsm.c reads the inode uid and
> uses it for the security check:
>
> static int common_perm_cond(const char *op, const struct path *path, u32 mask)
> {
>       struct path_cond cond = { d_backing_inode(path->dentry)->i_uid,
>
> d_backing_inode(path->dentry)->i_mode
>       };
>
> Now consider the following test program:
>
> #define _GNU_SOURCE
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <sys/stat.h>
> #include <sys/types.h>
> #include <unistd.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
> #include <pthread.h>
>
> void *thr(void *arg)
> {
>         for (;;) {
>                 struct stat file_stat;
>                 stat((char*)arg, &file_stat);
>         }
>         return 0;
> }
>
> int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> {
>         char proc[32];
>         sprintf(proc, "/proc/%d", getpid());
>         printf("%s\n", proc);
>         pthread_t th;
>         pthread_create(&th, 0, thr, proc);
>         for (;;) {
>                 seteuid(1000);
>                 usleep(1);
>                 seteuid(0);
>                 struct stat file_stat;
>                 stat(proc, &file_stat);
>         }
>         return 0;
> }
>
> Whenever the main thread does stat, it must observe inode.uid == 0 in
> common_perm_cond().
>
> But since task_dump_owner() does writeback out of order, it can lead
> to non-linearizable executions and main thread observing inode.uid ==
> 1000.
> This in turn can lead to both false negatives and false positives from
> AppArmour (false denying access and falsely permitting access).
>
> I don't know how to setup actual AppArmour profile to do this, but I
> see this guide mentions "owner @{PROC}/[0-9]*" in a policy, so I
> assume it's possible:
> https://gitlab.com/apparmor/apparmor/wikis/Profiling_by_hand
>
> Instead, I added the following check to common_perm_cond() (it's
> dirty, but you get the idea):
>
> @@ -218,6 +218,15 @@ static int common_perm_cond(const char *op, const
> struct path *path, u32 mask)
>                                   d_backing_inode(path->dentry)->i_mode
>         };
> +       if (op == OP_GETATTR && mask == AA_MAY_GETATTR && cond.uid.val != 0) {
> +               char buf1[64], buf2[64];
> +               char *str = d_path(path, buf1, sizeof(buf1));
> +               sprintf(buf2, "/proc/%d", current->pid);
> +               if (!strcmp(str, buf2))
> +                       pr_err("common_perm_cond: path=%s pid=%d uid=%d\n",
> +                               str, current->pid, cond.uid.val);
> +       }
>
> Now when I run the program, I see how it fires every few seconds:
>
> # ./a.out
> /proc/1548
> [  123.233107] common_perm_cond: path=/proc/1548 pid=1548 uid=1000
> [  126.142869] common_perm_cond: path=/proc/1548 pid=1548 uid=1000
> [  127.048353] common_perm_cond: path=/proc/1548 pid=1548 uid=1000
> [  128.181873] common_perm_cond: path=/proc/1548 pid=1548 uid=1000
> [  128.557104] common_perm_cond: path=/proc/1548 pid=1548 uid=1000
> [  144.690774] common_perm_cond: path=/proc/1548 pid=1548 uid=1000
>
> Which means AppArmour acts based on the wrong UID. Obviously can lead
> to falsely denying access, but also falsely permitting access.
> Consider the following scenario.
> A process sets owner UID on a file so that a child process won't be
> able to access it, after that it starts the child process.
> common_perm_cond() in the child process should observe the new owner
> UID. However, if there a random other process simply doing stat() or
> something similar on the file, now the common_perm_cond() in the child
> can suddenly observe the old UID, which will be permitted by
> AppArmour. Boom!
>
> I've tried to apply "proc: fix inode uid/gid writeback race":
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20191020173010.GA14744@avx2/
> but it does _not_ help because it does not really resolve the
> non-atomic snapshot and writeback of UID.

FTR here is the corresponding race report:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/syzkaller-bugs/Cs07ly_Nmtg/avW672LrAQAJ