Hey look another threaded exec bug. :|
On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 12:09:36PM -0700, syzbot wrote:
> ==================================================================
> BUG: KCSAN: data-race in bprm_execve / copy_fs
>
> write to 0xffff8881044f8250 of 4 bytes by task 13692 on cpu 0:
> bprm_execve+0x748/0x9c0 fs/exec.c:1884
This is:
current->fs->in_exec = 0;
And is part of the execve failure path:
out:
...
if (bprm->point_of_no_return && !fatal_signal_pending(current))
force_fatal_sig(SIGSEGV);
sched_mm_cid_after_execve(current);
current->fs->in_exec = 0;
current->in_execve = 0;
return retval;
}
> do_execveat_common+0x769/0x7e0 fs/exec.c:1966
> do_execveat fs/exec.c:2051 [inline]
> __do_sys_execveat fs/exec.c:2125 [inline]
> __se_sys_execveat fs/exec.c:2119 [inline]
> __x64_sys_execveat+0x75/0x90 fs/exec.c:2119
> x64_sys_call+0x291e/0x2dc0 arch/x86/include/generated/asm/syscalls_64.h:323
> do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:52 [inline]
> do_syscall_64+0xc9/0x1c0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:83
> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f
>
> read to 0xffff8881044f8250 of 4 bytes by task 13686 on cpu 1:
> copy_fs+0x95/0xf0 kernel/fork.c:1770
This is:
if (fs->in_exec) {
Which is under lock:
struct fs_struct *fs = current->fs;
if (clone_flags & CLONE_FS) {
/* tsk->fs is already what we want */
spin_lock(&fs->lock);
/* "users" and "in_exec" locked for check_unsafe_exec() * */
if (fs->in_exec) {
spin_unlock(&fs->lock);
return -EAGAIN;
}
fs->users++;
spin_unlock(&fs->lock);
Does execve need to be taking this lock? The other thing touching it is
check_unsafe_exec(), which takes the lock. It looks like the bprm_execve()
lock was removed in commit 8c652f96d385 ("do_execve() must not clear
fs->in_exec if it was set by another thread") which used the return
value from check_unsafe_exec():
When do_execve() succeeds, it is safe to clear ->in_exec unconditionally.
It can be set only if we don't share ->fs with another process, and since
we already killed all sub-threads either ->in_exec == 0 or we are the
only user of this ->fs.
Also, we do not need fs->lock to clear fs->in_exec.
This logic was updated in commit 9e00cdb091b0 ("exec:check_unsafe_exec:
kill the dead -EAGAIN and clear_in_exec logic"), which includes this
rationale:
2. "out_unmark:" in do_execve_common() is either called
under ->cred_guard_mutex, or after de_thread() which
kills other threads, so we can't race with sub-thread
which could set ->in_exec. And if ->fs is shared with
another process ->in_exec should be false anyway.
The de_thread() is part of the "point of no return" in exec_binprm(),
called via exec_binprm(). But the bprm_execve() error path is reachable
from many paths prior to the point of no return.
What I can imagine here is two failing execs racing a fork:
A start execve
B fork with CLONE_FS
C start execve, reach check_unsafe_exec(), set fs->in_exec
A bprm_execve() failure, clear fs->in_exec
B copy_fs() increment fs->users.
C bprm_execve() failure, clear fs->in_exec
But I don't think this is a "real" flaw, though, since the locking is to
protect a _successful_ execve from a fork (i.e. getting the user count
right). A successful execve will de_thread, and I don't see any wrong
counting of fs->users with regard to thread lifetime.
Did I miss something in the analysis? Should we perform locking anyway,
or add data race annotations, or something else?
--
Kees Cook
