On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 1:46 PM Jann Horn <jannh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 10:28 PM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 10:03 AM Jann Horn <jannh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > +locking maintainers
> >
> > Thanks! I'll CC the locking maintainers in the next posting.
> >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 9:54 PM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > Introduce a per-VMA rw_semaphore to be used during page fault handling
> > > > instead of mmap_lock. Because there are cases when multiple VMAs need
> > > > to be exclusively locked during VMA tree modifications, instead of the
> > > > usual lock/unlock patter we mark a VMA as locked by taking per-VMA lock
> > > > exclusively and setting vma->lock_seq to the current mm->lock_seq. When
> > > > mmap_write_lock holder is done with all modifications and drops mmap_lock,
> > > > it will increment mm->lock_seq, effectively unlocking all VMAs marked as
> > > > locked.
> > > [...]
> > > > +static inline void vma_read_unlock(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> > > > +{
> > > > + up_read(&vma->lock);
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > One thing that might be gnarly here is that I think you might not be
> > > allowed to use up_read() to fully release ownership of an object -
> > > from what I remember, I think that up_read() (unlike something like
> > > spin_unlock()) can access the lock object after it's already been
> > > acquired by someone else. So if you want to protect against concurrent
> > > deletion, this might have to be something like:
> > >
> > > rcu_read_lock(); /* keeps vma alive */
> > > up_read(&vma->lock);
> > > rcu_read_unlock();
> >
> > But for deleting VMA one would need to write-lock the vma->lock first,
> > which I assume can't happen until this up_read() is complete. Is that
> > assumption wrong?
>
> __up_read() does:
>
> rwsem_clear_reader_owned(sem);
> tmp = atomic_long_add_return_release(-RWSEM_READER_BIAS, &sem->count);
> DEBUG_RWSEMS_WARN_ON(tmp < 0, sem);
> if (unlikely((tmp & (RWSEM_LOCK_MASK|RWSEM_FLAG_WAITERS)) ==
> RWSEM_FLAG_WAITERS)) {
> clear_nonspinnable(sem);
> rwsem_wake(sem);
> }
>
> The atomic_long_add_return_release() is the point where we are doing
> the main lock-releasing.
>
> So if a reader dropped the read-lock while someone else was waiting on
> the lock (RWSEM_FLAG_WAITERS) and no other readers were holding the
> lock together with it, the reader also does clear_nonspinnable() and
> rwsem_wake() afterwards.
> But in rwsem_down_write_slowpath(), after we've set
> RWSEM_FLAG_WAITERS, we can return successfully immediately once
> rwsem_try_write_lock() sees that there are no active readers or
> writers anymore (if RWSEM_LOCK_MASK is unset and the cmpxchg
> succeeds). We're not necessarily waiting for the "nonspinnable" bit or
> the wake.
>
> So yeah, I think down_write() can return successfully before up_read()
> is done with its memory accesses.
>
> (Spinlocks are different - the kernel relies on being able to drop
> references via spin_unlock() in some places.)
Thanks for bringing this up. I can add rcu_read_{lock/unlock) as you
suggested and that would fix the issue because we free VMAs from
call_rcu(). However this feels to me as an issue of rw_semaphore
design that this locking pattern is unsafe and might lead to UAF.
