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:   "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@quicinc.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
        Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@intel.com>
Cc:     rcu@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 13/13] rcu: Protect rcu_print_task_exp_stall() ->exp_tasks access
Date:   Sat, 25 Mar 2023 17:33:16 +0000
Message-Id: <20230325173316.3118674-14-joel@joelfernandes.org>
In-Reply-To: <20230325173316.3118674-1-joel@joelfernandes.org>
References: <20230325173316.3118674-1-joel@joelfernandes.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

From: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@intel.com>

For kernels built with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU=y, the following scenario can
result in a NULL-pointer dereference:

           CPU1                                           CPU2
rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_irqrestore                rcu_print_task_exp_stall
  if (special.b.blocked)                            READ_ONCE(rnp->exp_tasks) != NULL
    raw_spin_lock_rcu_node
    np = rcu_next_node_entry(t, rnp)
    if (&t->rcu_node_entry == rnp->exp_tasks)
      WRITE_ONCE(rnp->exp_tasks, np)
      ....
      raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node
                                                    raw_spin_lock_irqsave_rcu_node
                                                    t = list_entry(rnp->exp_tasks->prev,
                                                        struct task_struct, rcu_node_entry)
                                                    (if rnp->exp_tasks is NULL, this
                                                       will dereference a NULL pointer)

The problem is that CPU2 accesses the rcu_node structure's->exp_tasks
field without holding the rcu_node structure's ->lock and CPU2 did
not observe CPU1's change to rcu_node structure's ->exp_tasks in time.
Therefore, if CPU1 sets rcu_node structure's->exp_tasks pointer to NULL,
then CPU2 might dereference that NULL pointer.

This commit therefore holds the rcu_node structure's ->lock while
accessing that structure's->exp_tasks field.

[ paulmck: Apply Frederic Weisbecker feedback. ]

Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
---
 kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h | 6 ++++--
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
index 5343f32e7d67..3b7abb58157d 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
@@ -803,9 +803,11 @@ static int rcu_print_task_exp_stall(struct rcu_node *rnp)
 	int ndetected = 0;
 	struct task_struct *t;
 
-	if (!READ_ONCE(rnp->exp_tasks))
-		return 0;
 	raw_spin_lock_irqsave_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
+	if (!rnp->exp_tasks) {
+		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
+		return 0;
+	}
 	t = list_entry(rnp->exp_tasks->prev,
 		       struct task_struct, rcu_node_entry);
 	list_for_each_entry_continue(t, &rnp->blkd_tasks, rcu_node_entry) {
-- 
2.40.0.348.gf938b09366-goog