On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 12:34 AM Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> If f_count reaches 0, calling get_file() should be a failure. Adjust to
> use atomic_long_inc_not_zero() and return NULL on failure. In the future
> get_file() can be annotated with __must_check, though that is not
> currently possible.
[...]
> static inline struct file *get_file(struct file *f)
> {
> - atomic_long_inc(&f->f_count);
> + if (unlikely(!atomic_long_inc_not_zero(&f->f_count)))
> + return NULL;
> return f;
> }
Oh, I really don't like this...
In most code, if you call get_file() on a file and see refcount zero,
that basically means you're in a UAF write situation, or that you
could be in such a situation if you had raced differently. It's
basically just like refcount_inc() in that regard.
And get_file() has semantics just like refcount_inc(): The caller
guarantees that it is already holding a reference to the file; and if
the caller is wrong about that, their subsequent attempt to clean up
the reference that they think they were already holding will likely
lead to UAF too. If get_file() sees a zero refcount, there is no safe
way to continue. And all existing callers of get_file() expect the
return value to be the same as the non-NULL pointer they passed in, so
they'll either ignore the result of this check and barrel on, or oops
with a NULL deref.
For callers that want to actually try incrementing file refcounts that
could be zero, which is only possible under specific circumstances, we
have helpers like get_file_rcu() and get_file_active().
Can't you throw a CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION() or something like that in
there instead?
