From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Pu Lehui" <pulehui@huaweicloud.com>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf v2] bpf: Fix UAF due to concurrent consumption of waiting_for_gp_ttrace
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2026 08:47:56 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260827084756.EC4271F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260827084013.1062816-1-pulehui@huaweicloud.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
Pre-existing issues:
- [High] The patch fixes concurrent consumption for `waiting_for_gp_ttrace` but incorrectly claims `free_by_rcu_ttrace` is safe. A race condition during cache destruction leads to a Use-After-Free on `free_by_rcu_ttrace`.
--
commit ed5f43858e59ce799a585eeedfe466c5543df6aa
Author: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
Subject: bpf: Fix UAF due to concurrent consumption of waiting_for_gp_ttrace
This commit fixes a use-after-free caused by concurrent consumption of
waiting_for_gp_ttrace nodes by alloc_bulk() and __free_rcu(). It introduces
a raw spinlock to synchronize operations on this list.
The commit message notes:
> Note that free_by_rcu_ttrace does not suffer from this issue as it only
> has a single active consumer during normal operation.
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/memalloc.c b/kernel/bpf/memalloc.c
> index e9662db7198fe..58296e92a4fed 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/memalloc.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/memalloc.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -297,6 +307,7 @@ static void enque_to_free(struct bpf_mem_cache *c, void *obj)
> static void do_call_rcu_ttrace(struct bpf_mem_cache *c)
> {
> struct llist_node *llnode, *t;
> + unsigned long flags;
>
> if (atomic_xchg(&c->call_rcu_ttrace_in_progress, 1)) {
> if (unlikely(READ_ONCE(c->draining))) {
> llnode = llist_del_all(&c->free_by_rcu_ttrace);
> free_all(c, llnode, !!c->percpu_size);
> }
[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but does free_by_rcu_ttrace actually suffer
from a similar race condition during cache destruction?
If userspace triggers destruction of a BPF memory allocator via
bpf_mem_alloc_destroy(), CPU 0 sets c->draining = true and synchronizes
the irq_work:
CPU 0: bpf_mem_alloc_destroy()
WRITE_ONCE(c->draining, true);
irq_work_sync(&c->refill_work);
Meanwhile, CPU 1 could be executing alloc_bulk() inside the refill work,
consuming from free_by_rcu_ttrace:
CPU 1: alloc_bulk()
obj = llist_del_first(&c->free_by_rcu_ttrace);
If CPU 1 reads the head pointer in llist_del_first() but is delayed before
READ_ONCE(entry->next), and concurrently an RCU callback on CPU 2 calls
do_call_rcu_ttrace(), CPU 2 will observe draining == true here and
immediately free the nodes.
When CPU 1 resumes and executes READ_ONCE(entry->next), won't this result
in a use-after-free on the node that was just freed to the slab allocator?
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260827084013.1062816-1-pulehui@huaweicloud.com?part=1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-27 8:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-27 8:40 [PATCH bpf v2] bpf: Fix UAF due to concurrent consumption of waiting_for_gp_ttrace Pu Lehui
2026-08-27 8:47 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-08-27 11:45 ` Pu Lehui
2026-08-27 14:43 ` Hou Tao
2026-08-27 8:51 ` Leon Hwang
2026-08-27 11:45 ` Pu Lehui
2026-08-27 9:24 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-27 14:40 ` Hou Tao
2026-08-29 9:50 ` Pu Lehui
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260827084756.EC4271F000E9@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pulehui@huaweicloud.com \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox