Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v30 07/12] landlock: Support filesystem access-control
To:     Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Cc:     James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
        "Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Vincent Dagonneau <vincent.dagonneau@ssi.gouv.fr>,
        Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-security-module <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Micka=c3=abl_Sala=c3=bcn?= <mic@linux.microsoft.com>
References: <20210316204252.427806-1-mic@digikod.net>
 <20210316204252.427806-8-mic@digikod.net>
 <CAG48ez1arKO3uYzwng8fst-UHkcH6J7YzyHFN+vfXUT2=1HT+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <b41a021c-69f4-075f-e9a0-a4483b280df8@digikod.net>
 <CAG48ez1Vkd3KtYphDHLLbbkKY9T_ByhUcxwYAcWuDAyiA04A+w@mail.gmail.com>
From:   =?UTF-8?Q?Micka=c3=abl_Sala=c3=bcn?= <mic@digikod.net>
Message-ID: <7e494b74-8d5d-a109-6327-992d7d8fca87@digikod.net>
Date:   Tue, 23 Mar 2021 20:22:28 +0100
User-Agent: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAG48ez1Vkd3KtYphDHLLbbkKY9T_ByhUcxwYAcWuDAyiA04A+w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk


On 23/03/2021 18:49, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 4:54 PM Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> wrote:
>> On 23/03/2021 01:13, Jann Horn wrote:
>>>  On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 9:43 PM Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> wrote:
>>>> Using Landlock objects and ruleset, it is possible to tag inodes
>>>> according to a process's domain.
>>> [...]
>>>> +static void release_inode(struct landlock_object *const object)
>>>> +       __releases(object->lock)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       struct inode *const inode = object->underobj;
>>>> +       struct super_block *sb;
>>>> +
>>>> +       if (!inode) {
>>>> +               spin_unlock(&object->lock);
>>>> +               return;
>>>> +       }
>>>> +
>>>> +       /*
>>>> +        * Protects against concurrent use by hook_sb_delete() of the reference
>>>> +        * to the underlying inode.
>>>> +        */
>>>> +       object->underobj = NULL;
>>>> +       /*
>>>> +        * Makes sure that if the filesystem is concurrently unmounted,
>>>> +        * hook_sb_delete() will wait for us to finish iput().
>>>> +        */
>>>> +       sb = inode->i_sb;
>>>> +       atomic_long_inc(&landlock_superblock(sb)->inode_refs);
>>>> +       spin_unlock(&object->lock);
>>>> +       /*
>>>> +        * Because object->underobj was not NULL, hook_sb_delete() and
>>>> +        * get_inode_object() guarantee that it is safe to reset
>>>> +        * landlock_inode(inode)->object while it is not NULL.  It is therefore
>>>> +        * not necessary to lock inode->i_lock.
>>>> +        */
>>>> +       rcu_assign_pointer(landlock_inode(inode)->object, NULL);
>>>> +       /*
>>>> +        * Now, new rules can safely be tied to @inode with get_inode_object().
>>>> +        */
>>>> +
>>>> +       iput(inode);
>>>> +       if (atomic_long_dec_and_test(&landlock_superblock(sb)->inode_refs))
>>>> +               wake_up_var(&landlock_superblock(sb)->inode_refs);
>>>> +}
>>> [...]
>>>> +static struct landlock_object *get_inode_object(struct inode *const inode)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       struct landlock_object *object, *new_object;
>>>> +       struct landlock_inode_security *inode_sec = landlock_inode(inode);
>>>> +
>>>> +       rcu_read_lock();
>>>> +retry:
>>>> +       object = rcu_dereference(inode_sec->object);
>>>> +       if (object) {
>>>> +               if (likely(refcount_inc_not_zero(&object->usage))) {
>>>> +                       rcu_read_unlock();
>>>> +                       return object;
>>>> +               }
>>>> +               /*
>>>> +                * We are racing with release_inode(), the object is going
>>>> +                * away.  Wait for release_inode(), then retry.
>>>> +                */
>>>> +               spin_lock(&object->lock);
>>>> +               spin_unlock(&object->lock);
>>>> +               goto retry;
>>>> +       }
>>>> +       rcu_read_unlock();
>>>> +
>>>> +       /*
>>>> +        * If there is no object tied to @inode, then create a new one (without
>>>> +        * holding any locks).
>>>> +        */
>>>> +       new_object = landlock_create_object(&landlock_fs_underops, inode);
>>>> +       if (IS_ERR(new_object))
>>>> +               return new_object;
>>>> +
>>>> +       /* Protects against concurrent get_inode_object() calls. */
>>>> +       spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
>>>> +       object = rcu_dereference_protected(inode_sec->object,
>>>> +                       lockdep_is_held(&inode->i_lock));
>>>
>>> rcu_dereference_protected() requires that inode_sec->object is not
>>> concurrently changed, but I think another thread could call
>>> get_inode_object() while we're in landlock_create_object(), and then
>>> we could race with the NULL write in release_inode() here? (It
>>> wouldn't actually be a UAF though because we're not actually accessing
>>> `object` here.) Or am I missing a lock that prevents this?
>>>
>>> In v28 this wasn't an issue because release_inode() was holding
>>> inode->i_lock (and object->lock) during the NULL store; but in v29 and
>>> this version the NULL store in release_inode() moved out of the locked
>>> region. I think you could just move the NULL store in release_inode()
>>> back up (and maybe add a comment explaining the locking rules for
>>> landlock_inode(...)->object)?
>>>
>>> (Or alternatively you could use rcu_dereference_raw() with a comment
>>> explaining that the read pointer is only used to check for NULL-ness,
>>> and that it is guaranteed that the pointer can't change if it is NULL
>>> and we're holding the lock. But that'd be needlessly complicated, I
>>> think.)
>>
>> To reach rcu_assign_pointer(landlock_inode(inode)->object, NULL) in
>> release_inode() or in hook_sb_delete(), the
>> landlock_inode(inode)->object need to be non-NULL,
> 
> Yes.
> 
>> which implies that a
>> call to get_inode_object(inode) either "retry" (because release_inode is
>> only called by landlock_put_object, which set object->usage to 0) until
>> it creates a new object, or reuses the existing referenced object (and
>> increments object->usage).
> 
> But it can be that landlock_inode(inode)->object only becomes non-NULL
> after get_inode_object() has checked
> rcu_dereference(inode_sec->object).
> 
>> The worse case would be if
>> get_inode_object(inode) is called just before the
>> rcu_assign_pointer(landlock_inode(inode)->object, NULL) from
>> hook_sb_delete(), which would result in an object with a NULL underobj,
>> which is the expected behavior (and checked by release_inode).
> 
> The scenario I'm talking about doesn't involve hook_sb_delete().
> 
>> The line rcu_assign_pointer(inode_sec->object, new_object) from
>> get_inode_object() can only be reached if the underlying inode doesn't
>> reference an object,
> 
> Yes.
> 
>> in which case hook_sb_delete() will not reach the
>> rcu_assign_pointer(landlock_inode(inode)->object, NULL) line for this
>> same inode.
>>
>> This works because get_inode_object(inode) is mutually exclusive to
>> itself with the same inode (i.e. an inode can only point to an object
>> that references this same inode).
> 
> To clarify: You can concurrently call get_inode_object() multiple
> times on the same inode, right? There are no locks held on entry to
> that function.
> 
>> I tried to explain this with the comment "Protects against concurrent
>> get_inode_object() calls" in get_inode_object(), and the comments just
>> before both rcu_assign_pointer(landlock_inode(inode)->object, NULL).
> 
> The scenario I'm talking about is:
> 
> Initially the inode does not have an associated landlock_object. There
> are two threads A and B. Thread A is going to execute
> get_inode_object(). Thread B is going to execute get_inode_object()
> followed immediately by landlock_put_object().
> 
> thread A: enters get_inode_object()
> thread A: rcu_dereference(inode_sec->object) returns NULL
> thread A: enters landlock_create_object()
> thread B: enters get_inode_object()
> thread B: rcu_dereference(inode_sec->object) returns NULL
> thread B: calls landlock_create_object()
> thread B: sets inode_sec->object while holding inode->i_lock
> thread B: leaves get_inode_object()
> thread B: enters landlock_put_object()
> thread B: object->usage drops to 0, object->lock is taken
> thread B: calls release_inode()
> thread B: drops object->lock
> thread A: returns from landlock_create_object()
> thread A: takes inode->i_lock
> 
> At this point, thread B will run:
> 
>     rcu_assign_pointer(landlock_inode(inode)->object, NULL);
> 
> while thread A runs:
> 
>     rcu_dereference_protected(inode_sec->object,
>         lockdep_is_held(&inode->i_lock));
> 
> meaning there is a (theoretical) data race, since
> rcu_dereference_protected() doesn't use READ_ONCE().

Hum, I see, that is what I was missing. And that explain why there is
(in practice) no impact on winning the race.

I would prefer to use rcu_access_pointer() instead of
rcu_dereference_protected() to avoid pitfall, and it reflects what I was
expecting:

--- a/security/landlock/fs.c
+++ b/security/landlock/fs.c
@@ -117,9 +117,7 @@ static struct landlock_object
*get_inode_object(struct inode *const inode)

        /* Protects against concurrent get_inode_object() calls. */
        spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
-       object = rcu_dereference_protected(inode_sec->object,
-                       lockdep_is_held(&inode->i_lock));
-       if (unlikely(object)) {
+       if (unlikely(rcu_access_pointer(inode_sec->object))) {
                /* Someone else just created the object, bail out and
retry. */
                spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
                kfree(new_object);


But I'm not sure about your proposition to move the NULL store in
release_inode() back up. Do you mean to add back the inode lock in
release_inode() like this?

--- a/security/landlock/fs.c
+++ b/security/landlock/fs.c
@@ -59,16 +59,12 @@ static void release_inode(struct landlock_object
*const object)
 	 * Makes sure that if the filesystem is concurrently unmounted,
 	 * hook_sb_delete() will wait for us to finish iput().
 	 */
+	spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
 	sb = inode->i_sb;
 	atomic_long_inc(&landlock_superblock(sb)->inode_refs);
 	spin_unlock(&object->lock);
-	/*
-	 * Because object->underobj was not NULL, hook_sb_delete() and
-	 * get_inode_object() guarantee that it is safe to reset
-	 * landlock_inode(inode)->object while it is not NULL.  It is therefore
-	 * not necessary to lock inode->i_lock.
-	 */
 	rcu_assign_pointer(landlock_inode(inode)->object, NULL);
+	spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
 	/*
 	 * Now, new rules can safely be tied to @inode with get_inode_object().
 	 */


I would prefer to avoid nested locks if it is not necessary though.


> 
>>>> +       if (unlikely(object)) {
>>>> +               /* Someone else just created the object, bail out and retry. */
>>>> +               spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
>>>> +               kfree(new_object);
>>>> +
>>>> +               rcu_read_lock();
>>>> +               goto retry;
>>>> +       }
>>>> +
>>>> +       rcu_assign_pointer(inode_sec->object, new_object);
>>>> +       /*
>>>> +        * @inode will be released by hook_sb_delete() on its superblock
>>>> +        * shutdown.
>>>> +        */
>>>> +       ihold(inode);
>>>> +       spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
>>>> +       return new_object;
>>>> +}