On 12/4/23 7:42 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 9:40 AM Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:When running `./test_progs -j` in my local vm with latest kernel, I once hit a kasan error like below: [ 1887.184724] BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in bpf_rb_root_free+0x1f8/0x2b0 [ 1887.185599] Read of size 4 at addr ffff888106806910 by task kworker/u12:2/2830 [ 1887.186498] [ 1887.186712] CPU: 3 PID: 2830 Comm: kworker/u12:2 Tainted: G OEL 6.7.0-rc3-00699-g90679706d486-dirty #494 [ 1887.188034] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.14.0-0-g155821a1990b-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014 [ 1887.189618] Workqueue: events_unbound bpf_map_free_deferred [ 1887.190341] Call Trace: [ 1887.190666] <TASK> [ 1887.190949] dump_stack_lvl+0xac/0xe0 [ 1887.191423] ? nf_tcp_handle_invalid+0x1b0/0x1b0 [ 1887.192019] ? panic+0x3c0/0x3c0 [ 1887.192449] print_report+0x14f/0x720 [ 1887.192930] ? preempt_count_sub+0x1c/0xd0 [ 1887.193459] ? __virt_addr_valid+0xac/0x120 [ 1887.194004] ? bpf_rb_root_free+0x1f8/0x2b0 [ 1887.194572] kasan_report+0xc3/0x100 [ 1887.195085] ? bpf_rb_root_free+0x1f8/0x2b0 [ 1887.195668] bpf_rb_root_free+0x1f8/0x2b0 [ 1887.196183] ? __bpf_obj_drop_impl+0xb0/0xb0 [ 1887.196736] ? preempt_count_sub+0x1c/0xd0 [ 1887.197270] ? preempt_count_sub+0x1c/0xd0 [ 1887.197802] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x1f/0x40 [ 1887.198319] bpf_obj_free_fields+0x1d4/0x260 [ 1887.198883] array_map_free+0x1a3/0x260 [ 1887.199380] bpf_map_free_deferred+0x7b/0xe0 [ 1887.199943] process_scheduled_works+0x3a2/0x6c0 [ 1887.200549] worker_thread+0x633/0x890 [ 1887.201047] ? __kthread_parkme+0xd7/0xf0 [ 1887.201574] ? kthread+0x102/0x1d0 [ 1887.202020] kthread+0x1ab/0x1d0 [ 1887.202447] ? pr_cont_work+0x270/0x270 [ 1887.202954] ? kthread_blkcg+0x50/0x50 [ 1887.203444] ret_from_fork+0x34/0x50 [ 1887.203914] ? kthread_blkcg+0x50/0x50 [ 1887.204397] ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20 [ 1887.204913] </TASK> [ 1887.204913] </TASK> [ 1887.205209] [ 1887.205416] Allocated by task 2197: [ 1887.205881] kasan_set_track+0x3f/0x60 [ 1887.206366] __kasan_kmalloc+0x6e/0x80 [ 1887.206856] __kmalloc+0xac/0x1a0 [ 1887.207293] btf_parse_fields+0xa15/0x1480 [ 1887.207836] btf_parse_struct_metas+0x566/0x670 [ 1887.208387] btf_new_fd+0x294/0x4d0 [ 1887.208851] __sys_bpf+0x4ba/0x600 [ 1887.209292] __x64_sys_bpf+0x41/0x50 [ 1887.209762] do_syscall_64+0x4c/0xf0 [ 1887.210222] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0x6b [ 1887.210868] [ 1887.211074] Freed by task 36: [ 1887.211460] kasan_set_track+0x3f/0x60 [ 1887.211951] kasan_save_free_info+0x28/0x40 [ 1887.212485] ____kasan_slab_free+0x101/0x180 [ 1887.213027] __kmem_cache_free+0xe4/0x210 [ 1887.213514] btf_free+0x5b/0x130 [ 1887.213918] rcu_core+0x638/0xcc0 [ 1887.214347] __do_softirq+0x114/0x37e The error happens at bpf_rb_root_free+0x1f8/0x2b0: 00000000000034c0 <bpf_rb_root_free>: ; { 34c0: f3 0f 1e fa endbr64 34c4: e8 00 00 00 00 callq 0x34c9 <bpf_rb_root_free+0x9> 34c9: 55 pushq %rbp 34ca: 48 89 e5 movq %rsp, %rbp ... ; if (rec && rec->refcount_off >= 0 && 36aa: 4d 85 ed testq %r13, %r13 36ad: 74 a9 je 0x3658 <bpf_rb_root_free+0x198> 36af: 49 8d 7d 10 leaq 0x10(%r13), %rdi 36b3: e8 00 00 00 00 callq 0x36b8 <bpf_rb_root_free+0x1f8> <==== kasan function 36b8: 45 8b 7d 10 movl 0x10(%r13), %r15d <==== use-after-free load 36bc: 45 85 ff testl %r15d, %r15d 36bf: 78 8c js 0x364d <bpf_rb_root_free+0x18d> So the problem is at rec->refcount_off in the above. I did some source code analysis and find the reason. CPU A CPU B bpf_map_put: ... btf_put with rcu callback ... bpf_map_free_deferred with system_unbound_wq ... ... ... ... btf_free_rcu: ... ... ... bpf_map_free_deferred: ... ... ... ---------> btf_struct_metas_free() ... | race condition ... ... ---------> map->ops->map_free() ... ... btf->struct_meta_tab = NULL In the above, map_free() corresponds to array_map_free() and eventually calling bpf_rb_root_free() which calls: ... __bpf_obj_drop_impl(obj, field->graph_root.value_rec, false); ... Here, 'value_rec' is assigned in btf_check_and_fixup_fields() with following code: meta = btf_find_struct_meta(btf, btf_id); if (!meta) return -EFAULT; rec->fields[i].graph_root.value_rec = meta->record; So basically, 'value_rec' is a pointer to the record in struct_metas_tab. And it is possible that that particular record has been freed by btf_struct_metas_free() and hence we have a kasan error here. Actually it is very hard to reproduce the failure with current bpf/bpf-next code, I only got the above error once. To increase reproducibility, I added a delay in bpf_map_free_deferred() to delay map->ops->map_free(), which significantly increased reproducibility. diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c index 5e43ddd1b83f..aae5b5213e93 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c @@ -695,6 +695,7 @@ static void bpf_map_free_deferred(struct work_struct *work) struct bpf_map *map = container_of(work, struct bpf_map, work); struct btf_record *rec = map->record; + mdelay(100); security_bpf_map_free(map); bpf_map_release_memcg(map); /* implementation dependent freeing */ To fix the problem, I moved btf_put() after map->ops->map_free() to ensure struct_metas available during map_free(). Rerun './test_progs -j' with the above mdelay() hack for a couple of times and didn't observe the error. Fixes: 958cf2e273f0 ("bpf: Introduce bpf_obj_new") Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@xxxxxxxxx> --- kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 6 +++++- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c index 0ed286b8a0f0..9c6c3738adfe 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c @@ -694,11 +694,16 @@ static void bpf_map_free_deferred(struct work_struct *work) { struct bpf_map *map = container_of(work, struct bpf_map, work); struct btf_record *rec = map->record; + struct btf *btf = map->btf; security_bpf_map_free(map); bpf_map_release_memcg(map); /* implementation dependent freeing */ map->ops->map_free(map); + /* Delay freeing of btf for maps, as map_free callback may need + * struct_meta info which will be freed with btf_put(). + */ + btf_put(btf);The change makes sense to me, but logically I'd put it after btf_record_free(rec), just in case if some of btf records ever refer back to map's BTF or something (and just in general to keep it the very last thing that's happening).
Currently it is safe as btf_record_free() does not touch anything freed by btf_put(). But surely will put btf_put() at the end just in case in the future btf_record_free() changes.
But it also seems like CI is not happy ([0]), please take a look, thanks! [0] https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/7090474333/job/19297672532
It is a timing issue. The patch made a little bit longer to free btf and the test may fail as it can still retrieve the btf_id although it has been freed. Adding one kern_sync_rcu() in user space seems making it reliable again, at least tentatively.
/* Delay freeing of btf_record for maps, as map_free * callback usually needs access to them. It is better to do it here * than require each callback to do the free itself manually. @@ -727,7 +732,6 @@ void bpf_map_put(struct bpf_map *map) if (atomic64_dec_and_test(&map->refcnt)) { /* bpf_map_free_id() must be called first */ bpf_map_free_id(map); - btf_put(map->btf); INIT_WORK(&map->work, bpf_map_free_deferred); /* Avoid spawning kworkers, since they all might contend * for the same mutex like slab_mutex. -- 2.34.1
