Re: Bug: fio traps into kernel without exiting because futex has adeadloop

[Zhang, Yanmin]

On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 10:39 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Jun 2009, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 13:36 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > FWIW, using a private futex on a shm section is wrong in and of itself.
> > >
> > > What I mean is it could be used as a DOS attack.
> > 
> > Right. Fix is on the way.
> >  
> > > Did you try my test case? Could you kill it when it runs?
> > 
> > No, you can not kill it. That's why it needs a proper fix. Will send
> > out today.
> 
> Can you please verify the patch below ? It's against 2.6.30.
I tested it with my test case and it doesn't hang again. But I still
have considerations.

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	tglx
> 
> -------------->
> futex: Fix the write access fault problem for real
>     
> commit 64d1304a64 (futex: setup writeable mapping for futex ops which
> modify user space data) did address only half of the problem of write
> access faults.
>     
> The patch was made on two wrong assumptions:
>     
> 1) access_ok(VERIFY_WRITE,...) would actually check write access.
>   
>    On x86 it does _NOT_. It's a pure address range check.
>     
> 2) a RW mapped region can not go away under us.
>     
>    That's wrong as well. Nobody can prevent another thread to call
>    mprotect(PROT_READ) on that region where the futex resides. If that
>    call hits between the get_user_pages_fast() verification and the
>    actual write access in the atomic region we are toast again.
>     
>    The solution is to not rely on access_ok and get_user() for any write
>    access related fault on private and shared futexes. Instead we need to
>    go through get_user_pages_fast() in the fault path to avoid any of the
>    above pitfalls. If get_user_pages_fast() returns -EFAULT we know that
>    we can not fix it anymore and need to bail out to user space.
>     
>    Remove a bunch of confusing comments on this issue as well.
>     
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  kernel/futex.c |   48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
>  1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> 
> Index: linux-2.6-tip/kernel/futex.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6-tip.orig/kernel/futex.c
> +++ linux-2.6-tip/kernel/futex.c
> @@ -278,6 +278,31 @@ void put_futex_key(int fshared, union fu
>  	drop_futex_key_refs(key);
>  }
>  
> +/*
> + * get_user_writeable - get user page and verify RW access
> + * @uaddr:	pointer to faulting user space address
> + *
> + * We cannot write to the user space address and get_user just faults
> + * the page in, but does not tell us whether the mapping is writeable.
> + *
> + * We can not rely on access_ok() for private futexes as it is just a
> + * range check and we can neither rely on get_user_pages() as there
> + * might be a mprotect(PROT_READ) for that mapping after
> + * get_user_pages() and before the fault in the atomic write access.
> + */
> +static int get_user_writeable(u32 __user *uaddr)
> +{
> +	unsigned long addr = (unsigned long)uaddr;
> +	struct page *page;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	ret = get_user_pages_fast(addr, 1, 1, &page);
I checked function ïget_user_pages_fast. It might return negative, 0, or
positive value. 0 means it doesn't pin any page. So why does below statement
use (!ret) to put_page?

I changed my test case and run it for unlimited times. It seems memory
leak is big.

get_user_pages_fast is used by get_futex_key with the similiar issue.

> +	if (!ret)
> +		put_page(page);
> +
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
>  static u32 cmpxchg_futex_value_locked(u32 __user *uaddr, u32 uval, u32 newval)
>  {
>  	u32 curval;
> @@ -739,7 +764,6 @@ retry:
>  retry_private:
>  	op_ret = futex_atomic_op_inuser(op, uaddr2);
>  	if (unlikely(op_ret < 0)) {
> -		u32 dummy;
>  
>  		double_unlock_hb(hb1, hb2);
>  
> @@ -757,7 +781,7 @@ retry_private:
>  			goto out_put_keys;
>  		}
>  
> -		ret = get_user(dummy, uaddr2);
> +		ret = get_user_writeable(uaddr2);
>  		if (ret)
>  			goto out_put_keys;
>  
> @@ -1097,7 +1121,7 @@ retry:
>  handle_fault:
>  	spin_unlock(q->lock_ptr);
>  
> -	ret = get_user(uval, uaddr);
> +	ret = get_user_writeable(uaddr);
>  
>  	spin_lock(q->lock_ptr);
>  
> @@ -1552,16 +1576,9 @@ out:
>  	return ret;
>  
>  uaddr_faulted:
> -	/*
> -	 * We have to r/w  *(int __user *)uaddr, and we have to modify it
> -	 * atomically.  Therefore, if we continue to fault after get_user()
> -	 * below, we need to handle the fault ourselves, while still holding
> -	 * the mmap_sem.  This can occur if the uaddr is under contention as
> -	 * we have to drop the mmap_sem in order to call get_user().
> -	 */
>  	queue_unlock(&q, hb);
>  
> -	ret = get_user(uval, uaddr);
> +	ret = get_user_writeable(uaddr);
X86 pte entry has no READABLE flag. Other platforms might have. If their pte
only set WRITE flag, Is it poosible to create a similiar DOS attack with
WRITEONLY area on such platforms?

>  	if (ret)
>  		goto out_put_key;
>  
> @@ -1657,17 +1674,10 @@ out:
>  	return ret;
>  
>  pi_faulted:
> -	/*
> -	 * We have to r/w  *(int __user *)uaddr, and we have to modify it
> -	 * atomically.  Therefore, if we continue to fault after get_user()
> -	 * below, we need to handle the fault ourselves, while still holding
> -	 * the mmap_sem.  This can occur if the uaddr is under contention as
> -	 * we have to drop the mmap_sem in order to call get_user().
> -	 */
>  	spin_unlock(&hb->lock);
>  	put_futex_key(fshared, &key);
>  
> -	ret = get_user(uval, uaddr);
> +	ret = get_user_writeable(uaddr);
>  	if (!ret)
>  		goto retry;
>  

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/