[PATCH] mm/z3fold: Fix z3fold_buddy_slots use after free

[PATCH] mm/z3fold: Fix z3fold_buddy_slots use after free

[Henry Burns]

Running z3fold stress testing with address sanitization
showed zhdr->slots was being used after it was freed.

z3fold_free(z3fold_pool, handle)
  free_handle(handle)
    kmem_cache_free(pool->c_handle, zhdr->slots)
  release_z3fold_page_locked_list(kref)
    __release_z3fold_page(zhdr, true)
      zhdr_to_pool(zhdr)
        slots_to_pool(zhdr->slots)  *BOOM*

Instead we split free_handle into two functions, release_handle()
and free_slots(). We use release_handle() in place of free_handle(),
and use free_slots() to call kmem_cache_free() after
__release_z3fold_page() is done.

Fixes: 7c2b8baa61fe  ("mm/z3fold.c: add structure for buddy handles")
Signed-off-by: Henry Burns <henryburns@google.com>
---
 mm/z3fold.c | 33 ++++++++++++++-------------------
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/z3fold.c b/mm/z3fold.c
index f7993ff778df..e174d1549734 100644
--- a/mm/z3fold.c
+++ b/mm/z3fold.c
@@ -213,31 +213,24 @@ static inline struct z3fold_buddy_slots *handle_to_slots(unsigned long handle)
 	return (struct z3fold_buddy_slots *)(handle & ~(SLOTS_ALIGN - 1));
 }
 
-static inline void free_handle(unsigned long handle)
+static inline void release_handle(unsigned long handle)
 {
-	struct z3fold_buddy_slots *slots;
-	int i;
-	bool is_free;
-
 	if (handle & (1 << PAGE_HEADLESS))
 		return;
 
 	WARN_ON(*(unsigned long *)handle == 0);
 	*(unsigned long *)handle = 0;
-	slots = handle_to_slots(handle);
-	is_free = true;
-	for (i = 0; i <= BUDDY_MASK; i++) {
-		if (slots->slot[i]) {
-			is_free = false;
-			break;
-		}
-	}
+}
 
-	if (is_free) {
-		struct z3fold_pool *pool = slots_to_pool(slots);
+/* At this point all of the slots should be empty */
+static inline void free_slots(struct z3fold_buddy_slots *slots)
+{
+	struct z3fold_pool *pool = slots_to_pool(slots);
+	int i;
 
-		kmem_cache_free(pool->c_handle, slots);
-	}
+	for (i = 0; i <= BUDDY_MASK; i++)
+		VM_BUG_ON(slots->slot[i]);
+	kmem_cache_free(pool->c_handle, slots);
 }
 
 static struct dentry *z3fold_do_mount(struct file_system_type *fs_type,
@@ -431,7 +424,8 @@ static inline struct z3fold_pool *zhdr_to_pool(struct z3fold_header *zhdr)
 static void __release_z3fold_page(struct z3fold_header *zhdr, bool locked)
 {
 	struct page *page = virt_to_page(zhdr);
-	struct z3fold_pool *pool = zhdr_to_pool(zhdr);
+	struct z3fold_buddy_slots *slots = zhdr->slots;
+	struct z3fold_pool *pool = slots_to_pool(slots);
 
 	WARN_ON(!list_empty(&zhdr->buddy));
 	set_bit(PAGE_STALE, &page->private);
@@ -442,6 +436,7 @@ static void __release_z3fold_page(struct z3fold_header *zhdr, bool locked)
 	spin_unlock(&pool->lock);
 	if (locked)
 		z3fold_page_unlock(zhdr);
+	free_slots(slots);
 	spin_lock(&pool->stale_lock);
 	list_add(&zhdr->buddy, &pool->stale);
 	queue_work(pool->release_wq, &pool->work);
@@ -1009,7 +1004,7 @@ static void z3fold_free(struct z3fold_pool *pool, unsigned long handle)
 		return;
 	}
 
-	free_handle(handle);
+	release_handle(handle);
 	if (kref_put(&zhdr->refcount, release_z3fold_page_locked_list)) {
 		atomic64_dec(&pool->pages_nr);
 		return;
-- 
2.22.0.410.gd8fdbe21b5-goog

Re: [PATCH] mm/z3fold: Fix z3fold_buddy_slots use after free

[Vitaly Wool]

Hi Henry,

On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 8:31 PM Henry Burns <henryburns@google.com> wrote:
>
> Running z3fold stress testing with address sanitization
> showed zhdr->slots was being used after it was freed.
>
> z3fold_free(z3fold_pool, handle)
>   free_handle(handle)
>     kmem_cache_free(pool->c_handle, zhdr->slots)
>   release_z3fold_page_locked_list(kref)
>     __release_z3fold_page(zhdr, true)
>       zhdr_to_pool(zhdr)
>         slots_to_pool(zhdr->slots)  *BOOM*

Thanks for looking into this. I'm not entirely sure I'm all for
splitting free_handle() but let me think about it.

> Instead we split free_handle into two functions, release_handle()
> and free_slots(). We use release_handle() in place of free_handle(),
> and use free_slots() to call kmem_cache_free() after
> __release_z3fold_page() is done.

A little less intrusive solution would be to move backlink to pool
from slots back to z3fold_header. Looks like it was a bad idea from
the start.

Best regards,
   Vitaly

Re: [PATCH] mm/z3fold: Fix z3fold_buddy_slots use after free

[Henry Burns]

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:45 AM Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Henry,
>
> On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 8:31 PM Henry Burns <henryburns@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > Running z3fold stress testing with address sanitization
> > showed zhdr->slots was being used after it was freed.
> >
> > z3fold_free(z3fold_pool, handle)
> >   free_handle(handle)
> >     kmem_cache_free(pool->c_handle, zhdr->slots)
> >   release_z3fold_page_locked_list(kref)
> >     __release_z3fold_page(zhdr, true)
> >       zhdr_to_pool(zhdr)
> >         slots_to_pool(zhdr->slots)  *BOOM*
>
> Thanks for looking into this. I'm not entirely sure I'm all for
> splitting free_handle() but let me think about it.
>
> > Instead we split free_handle into two functions, release_handle()
> > and free_slots(). We use release_handle() in place of free_handle(),
> > and use free_slots() to call kmem_cache_free() after
> > __release_z3fold_page() is done.
>
> A little less intrusive solution would be to move backlink to pool
> from slots back to z3fold_header. Looks like it was a bad idea from
> the start.
>
> Best regards,
>    Vitaly

We still want z3fold pages to be movable though. Wouldn't moving
the backink to the pool from slots to z3fold_header prevent us from
enabling migration?

Re: [PATCH] mm/z3fold: Fix z3fold_buddy_slots use after free

[Vitaly Wool]

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 6:57 PM Henry Burns <henryburns@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:45 AM Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Henry,
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 8:31 PM Henry Burns <henryburns@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Running z3fold stress testing with address sanitization
> > > showed zhdr->slots was being used after it was freed.
> > >
> > > z3fold_free(z3fold_pool, handle)
> > >   free_handle(handle)
> > >     kmem_cache_free(pool->c_handle, zhdr->slots)
> > >   release_z3fold_page_locked_list(kref)
> > >     __release_z3fold_page(zhdr, true)
> > >       zhdr_to_pool(zhdr)
> > >         slots_to_pool(zhdr->slots)  *BOOM*
> >
> > Thanks for looking into this. I'm not entirely sure I'm all for
> > splitting free_handle() but let me think about it.
> >
> > > Instead we split free_handle into two functions, release_handle()
> > > and free_slots(). We use release_handle() in place of free_handle(),
> > > and use free_slots() to call kmem_cache_free() after
> > > __release_z3fold_page() is done.
> >
> > A little less intrusive solution would be to move backlink to pool
> > from slots back to z3fold_header. Looks like it was a bad idea from
> > the start.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >    Vitaly
>
> We still want z3fold pages to be movable though. Wouldn't moving
> the backink to the pool from slots to z3fold_header prevent us from
> enabling migration?

That is a valid point but we can just add back pool pointer to
z3fold_header. The thing here is, there's another patch in the
pipeline that allows for a better (inter-page) compaction and it will
somewhat complicate things, because sometimes slots will have to be
released after z3fold page is released (because they will hold a
handle to another z3fold page). I would prefer that we just added back
pool to z3fold_header and changed zhdr_to_pool to just return
zhdr->pool, then had the compaction patch valid again, and then we
could come back to size optimization.

Best regards,
   Vitaly

Re: [PATCH] mm/z3fold: Fix z3fold_buddy_slots use after free

[Henry Burns]

> > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:45 AM Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Henry,
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 8:31 PM Henry Burns <henryburns@google.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Running z3fold stress testing with address sanitization
> > > > showed zhdr->slots was being used after it was freed.
> > > >
> > > > z3fold_free(z3fold_pool, handle)
> > > >   free_handle(handle)
> > > >     kmem_cache_free(pool->c_handle, zhdr->slots)
> > > >   release_z3fold_page_locked_list(kref)
> > > >     __release_z3fold_page(zhdr, true)
> > > >       zhdr_to_pool(zhdr)
> > > >         slots_to_pool(zhdr->slots)  *BOOM*
> > >
> > > Thanks for looking into this. I'm not entirely sure I'm all for
> > > splitting free_handle() but let me think about it.
> > >
> > > > Instead we split free_handle into two functions, release_handle()
> > > > and free_slots(). We use release_handle() in place of free_handle(),
> > > > and use free_slots() to call kmem_cache_free() after
> > > > __release_z3fold_page() is done.
> > >
> > > A little less intrusive solution would be to move backlink to pool
> > > from slots back to z3fold_header. Looks like it was a bad idea from
> > > the start.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >    Vitaly
> >
> > We still want z3fold pages to be movable though. Wouldn't moving
> > the backink to the pool from slots to z3fold_header prevent us from
> > enabling migration?
>
> That is a valid point but we can just add back pool pointer to
> z3fold_header. The thing here is, there's another patch in the
> pipeline that allows for a better (inter-page) compaction and it will
> somewhat complicate things, because sometimes slots will have to be
> released after z3fold page is released (because they will hold a
> handle to another z3fold page). I would prefer that we just added back
> pool to z3fold_header and changed zhdr_to_pool to just return
> zhdr->pool, then had the compaction patch valid again, and then we
> could come back to size optimization.

I see your point, patch incoming.

Re: [PATCH] mm/z3fold: Fix z3fold_buddy_slots use after free

[Shakeel Butt]

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:03 PM Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 6:57 PM Henry Burns <henryburns@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:45 AM Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Henry,
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 8:31 PM Henry Burns <henryburns@google.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Running z3fold stress testing with address sanitization
> > > > showed zhdr->slots was being used after it was freed.
> > > >
> > > > z3fold_free(z3fold_pool, handle)
> > > >   free_handle(handle)
> > > >     kmem_cache_free(pool->c_handle, zhdr->slots)
> > > >   release_z3fold_page_locked_list(kref)
> > > >     __release_z3fold_page(zhdr, true)
> > > >       zhdr_to_pool(zhdr)
> > > >         slots_to_pool(zhdr->slots)  *BOOM*
> > >
> > > Thanks for looking into this. I'm not entirely sure I'm all for
> > > splitting free_handle() but let me think about it.
> > >
> > > > Instead we split free_handle into two functions, release_handle()
> > > > and free_slots(). We use release_handle() in place of free_handle(),
> > > > and use free_slots() to call kmem_cache_free() after
> > > > __release_z3fold_page() is done.
> > >
> > > A little less intrusive solution would be to move backlink to pool
> > > from slots back to z3fold_header. Looks like it was a bad idea from
> > > the start.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >    Vitaly
> >
> > We still want z3fold pages to be movable though. Wouldn't moving
> > the backink to the pool from slots to z3fold_header prevent us from
> > enabling migration?
>
> That is a valid point but we can just add back pool pointer to
> z3fold_header. The thing here is, there's another patch in the
> pipeline that allows for a better (inter-page) compaction and it will
> somewhat complicate things, because sometimes slots will have to be
> released after z3fold page is released (because they will hold a
> handle to another z3fold page). I would prefer that we just added back
> pool to z3fold_header and changed zhdr_to_pool to just return
> zhdr->pool, then had the compaction patch valid again, and then we
> could come back to size optimization.
>

By adding pool pointer back to z3fold_header, will we still be able to
move/migrate/compact the z3fold pages?

Re: [PATCH] mm/z3fold: Fix z3fold_buddy_slots use after free

[Vitaly Wool]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2522 bytes --]

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019, 10:14 PM Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:03 PM Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 6:57 PM Henry Burns <henryburns@google.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:45 AM Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Henry,
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 8:31 PM Henry Burns <henryburns@google.com>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Running z3fold stress testing with address sanitization
> > > > > showed zhdr->slots was being used after it was freed.
> > > > >
> > > > > z3fold_free(z3fold_pool, handle)
> > > > >   free_handle(handle)
> > > > >     kmem_cache_free(pool->c_handle, zhdr->slots)
> > > > >   release_z3fold_page_locked_list(kref)
> > > > >     __release_z3fold_page(zhdr, true)
> > > > >       zhdr_to_pool(zhdr)
> > > > >         slots_to_pool(zhdr->slots)  *BOOM*
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for looking into this. I'm not entirely sure I'm all for
> > > > splitting free_handle() but let me think about it.
> > > >
> > > > > Instead we split free_handle into two functions, release_handle()
> > > > > and free_slots(). We use release_handle() in place of
> free_handle(),
> > > > > and use free_slots() to call kmem_cache_free() after
> > > > > __release_z3fold_page() is done.
> > > >
> > > > A little less intrusive solution would be to move backlink to pool
> > > > from slots back to z3fold_header. Looks like it was a bad idea from
> > > > the start.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > >    Vitaly
> > >
> > > We still want z3fold pages to be movable though. Wouldn't moving
> > > the backink to the pool from slots to z3fold_header prevent us from
> > > enabling migration?
> >
> > That is a valid point but we can just add back pool pointer to
> > z3fold_header. The thing here is, there's another patch in the
> > pipeline that allows for a better (inter-page) compaction and it will
> > somewhat complicate things, because sometimes slots will have to be
> > released after z3fold page is released (because they will hold a
> > handle to another z3fold page). I would prefer that we just added back
> > pool to z3fold_header and changed zhdr_to_pool to just return
> > zhdr->pool, then had the compaction patch valid again, and then we
> > could come back to size optimization.
> >
>
> By adding pool pointer back to z3fold_header, will we still be able to
> move/migrate/compact the z3fold pages?l
>

Sure, it's only zhdr_to_pool() that will change, basically.

~Vitaly

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3856 bytes --]