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
prev parent 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