From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756065AbdCTRvA (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Mar 2017 13:51:00 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:37986 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755861AbdCTRuv (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Mar 2017 13:50:51 -0400 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , stable@vger.kernel.org, Dmitry Vyukov , "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" , Darren Hart , juri.lelli@arm.com, bigeasy@linutronix.de, xlpang@redhat.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, jdesfossez@efficios.com, dvhart@infradead.org, bristot@redhat.com, Thomas Gleixner Subject: [PATCH 4.4 27/28] futex: Fix potential use-after-free in FUTEX_REQUEUE_PI Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 18:49:22 +0100 Message-Id: <20170320174720.286084019@linuxfoundation.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.12.0 In-Reply-To: <20170320174718.794407270@linuxfoundation.org> References: <20170320174718.794407270@linuxfoundation.org> User-Agent: quilt/0.65 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 4.4-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. ------------------ From: Peter Zijlstra commit c236c8e95a3d395b0494e7108f0d41cf36ec107c upstream. While working on the futex code, I stumbled over this potential use-after-free scenario. Dmitry triggered it later with syzkaller. pi_mutex is a pointer into pi_state, which we drop the reference on in unqueue_me_pi(). So any access to that pointer after that is bad. Since other sites already do rt_mutex_unlock() with hb->lock held, see for example futex_lock_pi(), simply move the unlock before unqueue_me_pi(). Reported-by: Dmitry Vyukov Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Reviewed-by: Darren Hart Cc: juri.lelli@arm.com Cc: bigeasy@linutronix.de Cc: xlpang@redhat.com Cc: rostedt@goodmis.org Cc: mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com Cc: jdesfossez@efficios.com Cc: dvhart@infradead.org Cc: bristot@redhat.com Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170304093558.801744246@infradead.org Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- kernel/futex.c | 20 +++++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) --- a/kernel/futex.c +++ b/kernel/futex.c @@ -2690,7 +2690,6 @@ static int futex_wait_requeue_pi(u32 __u { struct hrtimer_sleeper timeout, *to = NULL; struct rt_mutex_waiter rt_waiter; - struct rt_mutex *pi_mutex = NULL; struct futex_hash_bucket *hb; union futex_key key2 = FUTEX_KEY_INIT; struct futex_q q = futex_q_init; @@ -2782,6 +2781,8 @@ static int futex_wait_requeue_pi(u32 __u spin_unlock(q.lock_ptr); } } else { + struct rt_mutex *pi_mutex; + /* * We have been woken up by futex_unlock_pi(), a timeout, or a * signal. futex_unlock_pi() will not destroy the lock_ptr nor @@ -2805,18 +2806,19 @@ static int futex_wait_requeue_pi(u32 __u if (res) ret = (res < 0) ? res : 0; + /* + * If fixup_pi_state_owner() faulted and was unable to handle + * the fault, unlock the rt_mutex and return the fault to + * userspace. + */ + if (ret && rt_mutex_owner(pi_mutex) == current) + rt_mutex_unlock(pi_mutex); + /* Unqueue and drop the lock. */ unqueue_me_pi(&q); } - /* - * If fixup_pi_state_owner() faulted and was unable to handle the - * fault, unlock the rt_mutex and return the fault to userspace. - */ - if (ret == -EFAULT) { - if (pi_mutex && rt_mutex_owner(pi_mutex) == current) - rt_mutex_unlock(pi_mutex); - } else if (ret == -EINTR) { + if (ret == -EINTR) { /* * We've already been requeued, but cannot restart by calling * futex_lock_pi() directly. We could restart this syscall, but