Re: [PATCH] ima: fix infinite loop within "ima_match_policy" function.

liqiong
2021-08-20T17:54:22Z

Hi Simon,

On 2021/8/20 21:23, THOBY Simon wrote:
> Hi Liqiong,
>
> On 8/20/21 12:15 PM, 李力琼 wrote:
>> Hi, Simon:
>>
>> This solution is better then rwsem, a temp "ima_rules" variable should
>> can fix. I also have a another idea, with a little trick, default list
>> can traverse to the new list, so we don't need care about the read side.
>>
>> here is the patch:
>>
>> @@ -918,8 +918,21 @@ void ima_update_policy(void)
>> list_splice_tail_init_rcu(&ima_temp_rules, policy, synchronize_rcu);
>>
>> if (ima_rules != policy) {
>> + struct list_head *prev_rules = ima_rules;
>> + struct list_head *first = ima_rules->next;
>> ima_policy_flag = 0;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Make the previous list can traverse to new list,
>> + * that is tricky, or there is a deadly loop whithin
>> + * "list_for_each_entry_rcu(entry, ima_rules, list)"
>> + *
>> + * After update "ima_rules", restore the previous list.
>> + */
> I think this could be rephrased to be a tad clearer, I am not quite sure
> how I must interpret the first sentence of the comment.
I got it,  how about this:
/*
* The previous list has to traverse to new list,
* Or there may be a deadly loop within
* "list_for_each_entry_rcu(entry, ima_rules, list)"
*
* That is tricky, after updated "ima_rules", restore the previous list.
*/
>
>
>> + prev_rules->next = policy->next;
>> ima_rules = policy;
>> + syncchronize_rcu();
> I'm a bit puzzled as you seem to imply in the mail this patch was tested,
> but there is no 'syncchronize_rcu' (with two 'c') symbol in the kernel.
> Was that a copy/paste error? Or maybe you forgot the 'not' in "This
> patch has been tested"? These errors happen, and I am myself quite an
> expert in doing them :)

Sorry for the mistake, I copy/paste the patch and delete/edit some lines,
have reviewed before sending, but not found. I have made a case to reproduce
the error, dumping "ima_rules" and every item address of list in the error
situaiton, I can watchthe "ima_rules" change, old list traversing to the
new list.
And I have been doing a reboot test which found this bug. This patch
seems to work fine.

>
>> + prev_rules->next = first;
>>
>>
>> The side effect is the "ima_default_rules" will be changed a little while.
>> But it make sense, the process should be checked again by the new policy.
>>
>> This patch has been tested, if will do, I can resubmit this patch.>
>> How about this ?
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, here is how I think I understand you patch.
> We start with a situation like that (step 0):
> ima_rules --> List entry 0 (head node) = ima_default_rules <-> List entry 1 <-> List entry 2 <-> ... <-> List entry 0
>
> Then we decide to update the policy for the first time, so
> 'ima_rules [&ima_default_rules] != policy [&ima_policy_rules]'.
> We enter the condition.
> First we copy the current value of ima_rules (&ima_default_rules)
> to a temporary variable 'prev_rules'. We also create a pointer dubbed
> 'first' to the entry 1 in the default list (step 1):
> prev_rules -------------
> \/
> ima_rules --> List entry 0 (head node) = ima_default_rules <-> List entry 1 <-> List entry 2 <-> ... <-> List entry 0
> /\
> first --------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Then we update prev_rules->next to point to policy->next (step 2):
> List entry 1 <-> List entry 2 <-> ... -> List entry 0
> /\
> first
> (notice that list entry 0 no longer points backwards to 'list entry 1',
> but I don't think there is any reverse iteration in IMA, so it should be
> safe)
>
> prev_rules -------------
> \/
> ima_rules --> List entry 0 (head node) = ima_default_rules
> |
> |
> -------------------------------------------
> \/
> policy --> policy entry 0' (head node) = ima_policy_rules <-> policy entry 1' <-> policy entry 2' <-> .... <-> policy entry 0'
>
>
> We then update ima_rules to point to ima_policy_rules (step 3):
> List entry 1 <-> List entry 2 <-> ... -> List entry 0
> /\
> first
>
> prev_rules -------------
> \/
> ima_rules List entry 0 (head node) = ima_default_rules
> | |
> | |
> | ------------------------------------------
> --------------- |
> \/ \/
> policy --> policy entry 0' (head node) = ima_policy_rules <-> policy entry 1' <-> policy entry 2' <-> .... <-> policy entry 0'
> /\
> first --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Then we run synchronize_rcu() to wait for any RCU reader to exit their loops (step 4).
>
> Finally we update prev_rules->next to point back to the ima policy and fix the loop (step 5):
>
> List entry 1 <-> List entry 2 <-> ... -> List entry 0
> /\
> first
>
> prev_rules ---> List entry 0 (head node) = ima_default_rules <-> List entry 1 <-> List entry 2 <-> ... <-> List entry 0
> /\
> first (now useless)
> ima_rules
> |
> |
> |
> ---------------
> \/
> policy --> policy entry 0' (head node) = ima_policy_rules <-> policy entry 1' <-> policy entry 2' <-> .... <-> policy entry 0'
>
> The goal is that readers should still be able to loop
> (forward, as we saw that backward looping is temporarily broken)
> while in steps 0-4.

Yes, It's the workflow.

> I'm not completely sure what would happen to a client that started iterating
> over ima_rules right after step 2.
>
> Wouldn't they be able to start looping through the new policy
> as 'List entry 0 (head node) = ima_default_rules' points to ima_policy_rules?
> And if they, wouldn't they loop until the write to 'ima_rule' at step 3 (admittedly
> very shortly thereafter) completed?
> And would the compiler be allowed to optimize the read to 'ima_rules' in the
> list_for_each_entry() loop, thereby never reloading the new value for
> 'ima_rules', and thus looping forever, just what we are trying to avoid?

Yes,  "ima_rules" cache not update in time, It's a risk. I am not sure
if "WRITE_ONCE"
can do this trick. How about:
WRITE_ONCE(prev_rules->next, policy->next);
WRITE_ONCE(ima_rules, policy);

If can't fix the cache issue, maybe the "ima_rules_tmp" solution is the
best way.
I will test it.

> Overall, I'm tempted to say this is perhaps a bit too complex (at least,
> my head tells me it is, but that may very well be because I'm terrible
> at concurrency issues).
>
> Honestly, in this case I think awaiting input from more experienced
> kernel devs than I is the best path forward :-)
>
>> ----------
>> Regards,
>> liqiong
>>
> Thanks,
> Simon