Re: KASAN: use-after-free Read in vhost_chr_write_iter

[Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2018年05月21日 22:42, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 10:38:10AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > On 2018年05月18日 17:24, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > On 2018年05月17日 21:45, DaeRyong Jeong wrote:
> > > > We report the crash: KASAN: use-after-free Read in vhost_chr_write_iter
> > > >
> > > > This crash has been found in v4.17-rc1 using RaceFuzzer (a modified
> > > > version of Syzkaller), which we describe more at the end of this
> > > > report. Our analysis shows that the race occurs when invoking two
> > > > syscalls concurrently, write$vnet and ioctl$VHOST_RESET_OWNER.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Analysis:
> > > > We think the concurrent execution of vhost_process_iotlb_msg() and
> > > > vhost_dev_cleanup() causes the crash.
> > > > Both of functions can run concurrently (please see call sequence below),
> > > > and possibly, there is a race on dev->iotlb.
> > > > If the switch occurs right after vhost_dev_cleanup() frees
> > > > dev->iotlb, vhost_process_iotlb_msg() still sees the non-null value
> > > > and it
> > > > keep executing without returning -EFAULT. Consequently, use-after-free
> > > > occures
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thread interleaving:
> > > > CPU0 (vhost_process_iotlb_msg)                CPU1 (vhost_dev_cleanup)
> > > > (In the case of both VHOST_IOTLB_UPDATE and
> > > > VHOST_IOTLB_INVALIDATE)
> > > > =====                            =====
> > > >                              vhost_umem_clean(dev->iotlb);
> > > > if (!dev->iotlb) {
> > > >              ret = -EFAULT;
> > > >                  break;
> > > > }
> > > >                              dev->iotlb = NULL;
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Call Sequence:
> > > > CPU0
> > > > =====
> > > > vhost_net_chr_write_iter
> > > >      vhost_chr_write_iter
> > > >          vhost_process_iotlb_msg
> > > >
> > > > CPU1
> > > > =====
> > > > vhost_net_ioctl
> > > >      vhost_net_reset_owner
> > > >          vhost_dev_reset_owner
> > > >              vhost_dev_cleanup
> > > Thanks a lot for the analysis.
> > >
> > > This could be addressed by simply protect it with dev mutex.
> > >
> > > Will post a patch.
> > Could you please help to test the attached patch? I've done some smoking
> > test.
> >
> > Thanks
> > >From 88328386f3f652e684ee33dc4cf63dcaed871aea Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Jason Wang<jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 17:33:27 +0800
> > Subject: [PATCH] vhost: synchronize IOTLB message with dev cleanup
> >
> > DaeRyong Jeong reports a race between vhost_dev_cleanup() and
> > vhost_process_iotlb_msg():
> >
> > Thread interleaving:
> > CPU0 (vhost_process_iotlb_msg)			CPU1 (vhost_dev_cleanup)
> > (In the case of both VHOST_IOTLB_UPDATE and
> > VHOST_IOTLB_INVALIDATE)
> > =====						=====
> > 						vhost_umem_clean(dev->iotlb);
> > if (!dev->iotlb) {
> > 	        ret = -EFAULT;
> > 		        break;
> > }
> > 						dev->iotlb = NULL;
> >
> > The reason is we don't synchronize between them, fixing by protecting
> > vhost_process_iotlb_msg() with dev mutex.
> >
> > Reported-by: DaeRyong Jeong<threeearcat@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Fixes: 6b1e6cc7855b0 ("vhost: new device IOTLB API")
> > Reported-by: DaeRyong Jeong<threeearcat@xxxxxxxxx>
> Long terms we might want to move iotlb into vqs
> so that messages can be processed in parallel.
> Not sure how to do it yet.

Then we probably need to extend IOTLB msg to have a queue idx. But I 
thinkit was probably only help if we split tx/rx into separate processes.

Thanks