Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Munehisa Kamata <kamatam@amazon.com>
To:     <surenb@google.com>
CC:     <ebiggers@kernel.org>, <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, <hdanton@sina.com>,
        <kamatam@amazon.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-mm@kvack.org>, <mengcc@amazon.com>, <tj@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: another use-after-free in ep_remove_wait_queue()
Date:   Thu, 19 Jan 2023 18:46:13 -0800
Message-ID: <20230120024613.840905-1-kamatam@amazon.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJuCfpF9tCx4mjYFyX+p7qO9qt+rm=UMSdBt-uzaOqE0ThG04g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJuCfpF9tCx4mjYFyX+p7qO9qt+rm=UMSdBt-uzaOqE0ThG04g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 2023-01-20 01:37:11 +0000, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 5:31 PM Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 13:01:42 -0800 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Folks,
> > > I spent some more time digging into the details and this is what's
> > > happening. When we call rmdir to delete the cgroup with the pressure
> > > file being epoll'ed, roughly the following call chain happens in the
> > > context of the shell process:
> > >
> > > do_rmdir
> > >   cgroup_rmdir
> > >     kernfs_drain_open_files
> > >       cgroup_file_release
> > >         cgroup_pressure_release
> > >           psi_trigger_destroy
> > >
> > > Later on in the context of our reproducer, the last fput() is called
> > > causing wait queue removal:
> > >
> > > fput
> > >   ep_eventpoll_release
> > >     ep_free
> > >       ep_remove_wait_queue
> > >         remove_wait_queue
> > >
> > > By this time psi_trigger_destroy() already destroyed the trigger's
> > > waitqueue head and we hit UAF.
> > > I think the conceptual problem here (or maybe that's by design?) is
> > > that cgroup_file_release() is not really tied to the file's real
> > > lifetime (when the last fput() is issued). Otherwise fput() would call
> > > eventpoll_release() before f_op->release() and the order would be fine
> > > (we would remove the wait queue first in eventpoll_release() and then
> > > f_op->release() would cause trigger's destruction).
> >
> >   eventpoll_release
> >     eventpoll_release_file
> >       ep_remove
> >         ep_unregister_pollwait
> >           ep_remove_wait_queue
> >
> 
> Yes but fput() calls eventpoll_release() *before* f_op->release(), so
> waitqueue_head would be removed before trigger destruction.
 
But pwq->whead is still pointing the freed head, then we just hit the same
issue earlier?

> > Different roads run into the same Roma city.
> 
> You butchered the phrase :)
> 
> >
> > > Considering these findings, I think we can use the wake_up_pollfree()
> > > without contradicting the comment at
> > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/include/linux/wait.h#L253
> > > because indeed, cgroup_file_release() and therefore
> > > psi_trigger_destroy() are not tied to the file's lifetime.
> > >
> > > I'm CC'ing Tejun to check if this makes sense to him and
> > > cgroup_file_release() is working as expected in this case.
> > >
> > > Munehisha, if Tejun confirms this is all valid, could you please post
> > > a patch replacing wake_up_interruptible() with wake_up_pollfree()? We
> > > don't need to worry about wake_up_all() because we have a limitation
> > > of one trigger per file descriptor:
> > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/kernel/sched/psi.c#L1419,
> > > so there can be only one waiter.
> > > Thanks,
> > > Suren.
> >
> 
>