Re: [PATCH 2/2] uprobes: add speculative lockless VMA-to-inode-to-uprobe resolution

From: Jann Horn
Date: Mon Sep 09 2024 - 09:13:50 EST


On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 7:12 AM Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Given filp_cachep is already marked SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU, we can safely
> access vma->vm_file->f_inode field locklessly under just rcu_read_lock()

No, not every file is SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU - see for example
ovl_mmap(), which uses backing_file_mmap(), which does
vma_set_file(vma, file) where "file" comes from ovl_mmap()'s
"realfile", which comes from file->private_data, which is set in
ovl_open() to the return value of ovl_open_realfile(), which comes
from backing_file_open(), which allocates a file with
alloc_empty_backing_file(), which uses a normal kzalloc() without any
RCU stuff, with this comment:

* This is only for kernel internal use, and the allocate file must not be
* installed into file tables or such.

And when a backing_file is freed, you can see on the path
__fput() -> file_free()
that files with FMODE_BACKING are directly freed with kfree(), no RCU delay.

So the RCU-ness of "struct file" is an implementation detail of the
VFS, and you can't rely on it for ->vm_file unless you get the VFS to
change how backing file lifetimes work, which might slow down some
other workload, or you find a way to figure out whether you're dealing
with a backing file without actually accessing the file.

> +static struct uprobe *find_active_uprobe_speculative(unsigned long bp_vaddr)
> +{
> + const vm_flags_t flags = VM_HUGETLB | VM_MAYEXEC | VM_MAYSHARE;
> + struct mm_struct *mm = current->mm;
> + struct uprobe *uprobe;
> + struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> + struct file *vm_file;
> + struct inode *vm_inode;
> + unsigned long vm_pgoff, vm_start;
> + int seq;
> + loff_t offset;
> +
> + if (!mmap_lock_speculation_start(mm, &seq))
> + return NULL;
> +
> + rcu_read_lock();
> +
> + vma = vma_lookup(mm, bp_vaddr);
> + if (!vma)
> + goto bail;
> +
> + vm_file = data_race(vma->vm_file);

A plain "data_race()" says "I'm fine with this load tearing", but
you're relying on this load not tearing (since you access the vm_file
pointer below).
You're also relying on the "struct file" that vma->vm_file points to
being populated at this point, which means you need CONSUME semantics
here, which READ_ONCE() will give you, and something like RELEASE
semantics on any pairing store that populates vma->vm_file, which
means they'd all have to become something like smp_store_release()).

You might want to instead add another recheck of the sequence count
(which would involve at least a read memory barrier after the
preceding patch is fixed) after loading the ->vm_file pointer to
ensure that no one was concurrently changing the ->vm_file pointer
before you do memory accesses through it.

> + if (!vm_file || (vma->vm_flags & flags) != VM_MAYEXEC)
> + goto bail;

missing data_race() annotation on the vma->vm_flags access

> + vm_inode = data_race(vm_file->f_inode);

As noted above, this doesn't work because you can't rely on having RCU
lifetime for the file. One *very* ugly hack you could do, if you think
this code is so performance-sensitive that you're willing to do fairly
atrocious things here, would be to do a "yes I am intentionally doing
a UAF read and I know the address might not even be mapped at this
point, it's fine, trust me" pattern, where you use
copy_from_kernel_nofault(), kind of like in prepend_copy() in
fs/d_path.c, and then immediately recheck the sequence count before
doing *anything* with this vm_inode pointer you just loaded.



> + vm_pgoff = data_race(vma->vm_pgoff);
> + vm_start = data_race(vma->vm_start);
> +
> + offset = (loff_t)(vm_pgoff << PAGE_SHIFT) + (bp_vaddr - vm_start);
> + uprobe = find_uprobe_rcu(vm_inode, offset);
> + if (!uprobe)
> + goto bail;
> +
> + /* now double check that nothing about MM changed */
> + if (!mmap_lock_speculation_end(mm, seq))
> + goto bail;
> +
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> + /* happy case, we speculated successfully */
> + return uprobe;
> +bail:
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> + return NULL;
> +}