Re: [PATCH] amdgpu_dm: fix nonblocking atomic commit use-after-free

[Mazin Rezk <mnrzk@protonmail.com>]

On Friday, July 24, 2020 5:19 PM, Paul Menzel <pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de> wrote:

> Dear Kees,
>
> Am 24.07.20 um 19:33 schrieb Kees Cook:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 09:45:18AM +0200, Paul Menzel wrote:
> >
> > > Am 24.07.20 um 00:32 schrieb Kees Cook:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 09:10:15PM +0000, Mazin Rezk wrote:
> > > > As Linux 5.8-rc7 is going to be released this Sunday, I wonder, if commit
> > > > 3202fa62f ("slub: relocate freelist pointer to middle of object") should be
> > > > reverted for now to fix the regression for the users according to Linux’ no
> > > > regression policy. Once the AMDGPU/DRM driver issue is fixed, it can be
> > > > reapplied. I know it’s not optimal, but as some testing is going to be
> > > > involved for the fix, I’d argue it’s the best option for the users.
> >
> > Well, the SLUB defense was already released in v5.7, so I'm not sure it
> > really helps for amdgpu_dm users seeing it there too.
>
> In my opinion, it would help, as the stable release could pick up the
> revert, ones it’s in Linus’ master branch.
>
> > There was a fix to disable the async path for this driver that worked
> > around the bug too, yes? That seems like a safer and more focused
> > change that doesn't revert the SLUB defense for all users, and would
> > actually provide a complete, I think, workaround whereas reverting
> > the SLUB change means the race still exists. For example, it would be
> > hit with slab poisoning, etc.
>
> I do not know. If there is such a fix, that would be great. But if you
> do not know, how should a normal user? ;-)
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Paul
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Paul

If we're talking about workarounds now, I suggest simply swapping the base
and context variables in struct dm_atomic_state. By that way, we won't need
to change non-amdgpu parts of the code (e.g. by reverting the SLUB patch).

Prior to 3202fa62f, the freelist pointer was stored in dm_state->base which
was never dereferenced and therefore caused no noticeable issue. After
3202fa62f, the freelist pointer is stored in the middle of the struct (i.e.
dm_state->context).

Swapping the position of the base and context variables in dm_atomic_state
should, in theory, revert this code back to it's pre-5.7 state since the
code would be back to overwriting base instead.

If we decide to use this workaround, I can write the patch and do more
extended tests to confirm it works around the issues.

That said, I haven't seen the async disabling patch. If you could link to
it, I'd be glad to test it out and perhaps we can use that instead.

Thanks,
Mazin Rezk