public inbox for [email protected]
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
To: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Cc: Eric Biggers <[email protected]>,
	[email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] io_uring: fix UAF due to missing POLLFREE handling
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2022 08:44:25 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

On 1/14/22 7:33 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 1/14/22 13:47, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 1/14/22 4:59 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>> Fixes a problem described in 50252e4b5e989
>>> ("aio: fix use-after-free due to missing POLLFREE handling")
>>> and copies the approach used there.
>>>
>>> In short, we have to forcibly eject a poll entry when we meet POLLFREE.
>>> We can't rely on io_poll_get_ownership() as can't wait for potentially
>>> running tw handlers, so we use the fact that wqs are RCU freed. See
>>> Eric's patch and comments for more details.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Eric Biggers <[email protected]>
>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
>>> Reported-and-tested-by: [email protected]
>>> Fixes: 221c5eb233823 ("io_uring: add support for IORING_OP_POLL")
>>> Signed-off-by: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>>   fs/io_uring.c | 60 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>>>   1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
>>> index fa3277844d2e..bc424af1833b 100644
>>> --- a/fs/io_uring.c
>>> +++ b/fs/io_uring.c
>>> @@ -5462,12 +5462,14 @@ static void io_init_poll_iocb(struct io_poll_iocb *poll, __poll_t events,
>>>   
>>>   static inline void io_poll_remove_entry(struct io_poll_iocb *poll)
>>>   {
>>> -	struct wait_queue_head *head = poll->head;
>>> +	struct wait_queue_head *head = smp_load_acquire(&poll->head);
>>>   
>>> -	spin_lock_irq(&head->lock);
>>> -	list_del_init(&poll->wait.entry);
>>> -	poll->head = NULL;
>>> -	spin_unlock_irq(&head->lock);
>>> +	if (head) {
>>> +		spin_lock_irq(&head->lock);
>>> +		list_del_init(&poll->wait.entry);
>>> +		poll->head = NULL;
>>> +		spin_unlock_irq(&head->lock);
>>> +	}
>>>   }
>>>   
>>>   static void io_poll_remove_entries(struct io_kiocb *req)
>>> @@ -5475,10 +5477,26 @@ static void io_poll_remove_entries(struct io_kiocb *req)
>>>   	struct io_poll_iocb *poll = io_poll_get_single(req);
>>>   	struct io_poll_iocb *poll_double = io_poll_get_double(req);
>>>   
>>> -	if (poll->head)
>>> -		io_poll_remove_entry(poll);
>>> -	if (poll_double && poll_double->head)
>>> +	/*
>>> +	 * While we hold the waitqueue lock and the waitqueue is nonempty,
>>> +	 * wake_up_pollfree() will wait for us.  However, taking the waitqueue
>>> +	 * lock in the first place can race with the waitqueue being freed.
>>> +	 *
>>> +	 * We solve this as eventpoll does: by taking advantage of the fact that
>>> +	 * all users of wake_up_pollfree() will RCU-delay the actual free.  If
>>> +	 * we enter rcu_read_lock() and see that the pointer to the queue is
>>> +	 * non-NULL, we can then lock it without the memory being freed out from
>>> +	 * under us.
>>> +	 *
>>> +	 * Keep holding rcu_read_lock() as long as we hold the queue lock, in
>>> +	 * case the caller deletes the entry from the queue, leaving it empty.
>>> +	 * In that case, only RCU prevents the queue memory from being freed.
>>> +	 */
>>> +	rcu_read_lock();
>>> +	io_poll_remove_entry(poll);
>>> +	if (poll_double)
>>>   		io_poll_remove_entry(poll_double);
>>> +	rcu_read_unlock();
>>>   }
>>>   
>>>   /*
>>> @@ -5618,13 +5636,37 @@ static int io_poll_wake(struct wait_queue_entry *wait, unsigned mode, int sync,
>>>   						 wait);
>>>   	__poll_t mask = key_to_poll(key);
>>>   
>>> +	if (unlikely(mask & POLLFREE)) {
>>> +		io_poll_mark_cancelled(req);
>>> +		/* we have to kick tw in case it's not already */
>>> +		io_poll_execute(req, 0);
>>> +
>>> +		/*
>>> +		 * If the waitqueue is being freed early but someone is already
>>> +		 * holds ownership over it, we have to tear down the request as
>>> +		 * best we can. That means immediately removing the request from
>>> +		 * its waitqueue and preventing all further accesses to the
>>> +		 * waitqueue via the request.
>>> +		 */
>>> +		list_del_init(&poll->wait.entry);
>>> +
>>> +		/*
>>> +		 * Careful: this *must* be the last step, since as soon
>>> +		 * as req->head is NULL'ed out, the request can be
>>> +		 * completed and freed, since aio_poll_complete_work()
>>> +		 * will no longer need to take the waitqueue lock.
>>> +		 */
>>> +		smp_store_release(&poll->head, NULL);
>>> +		return 1;
>>> +	}
>>> +
>>>   	/* for instances that support it check for an event match first */
>>>   	if (mask && !(mask & poll->events))
>>>   		return 0;
>>>   
>>>   	if (io_poll_get_ownership(req)) {
>>>   		/* optional, saves extra locking for removal in tw handler */
>>> -		if (mask && poll->events & EPOLLONESHOT) {
>>> +		if (mask && (poll->events & EPOLLONESHOT)) {
>>>   			list_del_init(&poll->wait.entry);
>>>   			poll->head = NULL;
>>>   		}
>>
>> Nice work, and good job documenting it too. Just one minor comment -
> 
> Comments are copy-pasted from aio, all credit to Eric

Well, good job to Eric then :-)

>> this last change here seems like it was a leftover thing, mind if I drop
>> this non-functional change from the patch?
> 
> Sure, it doesn't hurt but whatever way is easier

OK done, thanks for the fix, applied.

-- 
Jens Axboe


      reply	other threads:[~2022-01-14 15:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-01-14 11:59 [PATCH] io_uring: fix UAF due to missing POLLFREE handling Pavel Begunkov
2022-01-14 13:47 ` Jens Axboe
2022-01-14 14:33   ` Pavel Begunkov
2022-01-14 15:44     ` Jens Axboe [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox