On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 10:31 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 10:26:32AM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 10:12 AM Jann Horn <jannh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 9:55 PM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > rw_semaphore is a sizable structure of 40 bytes and consumes
> > > > considerable space for each vm_area_struct. However vma_lock has
> > > > two important specifics which can be used to replace rw_semaphore
> > > > with a simpler structure:
> > > [...]
> > > > static inline void vma_read_unlock(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> > > > {
> > > > - up_read(&vma->vm_lock->lock);
> > > > + if (atomic_dec_and_test(&vma->vm_lock->count))
> > > > + wake_up(&vma->vm_mm->vma_writer_wait);
> > > > }
> > >
> > > I haven't properly reviewed this, but this bit looks like a
> > > use-after-free because you're accessing the vma after dropping your
> > > reference on it. You'd have to first look up the vma->vm_mm, then do
> > > the atomic_dec_and_test(), and afterwards do the wake_up() without
> > > touching the vma. Or alternatively wrap the whole thing in an RCU
> > > read-side critical section if the VMA is freed with RCU delay.
> >
> > vm_lock->count does not control the lifetime of the VMA, it's a
> > counter of how many readers took the lock or it's negative if the lock
> > is write-locked.
>
> Yes, but ...
>
> Task A:
> atomic_dec_and_test(&vma->vm_lock->count)
> Task B:
> munmap()
> write lock
> free VMA
> synchronize_rcu()
> VMA is really freed
> wake_up(&vma->vm_mm->vma_writer_wait);
>
> ... vma is freed.
>
> Now, I think this doesn't occur. I'm pretty sure that every caller of
> vma_read_unlock() is holding the RCU read lock. But maybe we should
> have that assertion?
Yep, that's what this patch is doing
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230109205336.3665937-27-surenb@xxxxxxxxxx/
by calling vma_assert_no_reader() from __vm_area_free().
>
