From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@intel.com>,
keyrings@vger.kernel.org, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@gmail.com>,
David Windsor <dwindsor@gmail.com>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@oracle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: next-20170510 refcount_inc() on zero / use-after-free in key_lookup()
Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 17:22:59 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170512162259.GF18818@leverpostej> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1265.1494602979@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 04:29:39PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
>
> > From a quick look at key_lookup(), the following looks very suspicious:
> >
> > found:
> > /* pretend it doesn't exist if it is awaiting deletion */
> > if (refcount_read(&key->usage) == 0)
> > goto not_found;
> >
> > /* this races with key_put(), but that doesn't matter since key_put()
> > * doesn't actually change the key
> > */
> > __key_get(key);
> >
> > ... as if we can race with key_put(), we can see a zero refcount here,
> > and the race *does* matter.
>
> No, it doesn't.
>
> If key_put() reduces a refcount to 0, it doesn't do anything other than poke
> the gc thread:
>
> void key_put(struct key *key)
> {
> if (key) {
> key_check(key);
>
> if (refcount_dec_and_test(&key->usage))
> schedule_work(&key_gc_work);
> }
> }
>
> in particular, no indication of the reduced key is passed.
>
> The gc thread scans the entire key serial tree under the key_serial_lock
> looking for keys that are no longer ref'd. No one else is allowed to remove
> keys from the tree. This means that the gc thread can safely leave a cursor
> pointing into the midst of the tree with no locks held whilst it yields to the
> scheduler.
>
> The code you quoted above in key_lookup() is inside the key_serial_lock, so it
> prevents the gc thread from culling a key when it resurrects it.
>
> So the problem isn't the key code, it's the refcount code.
Sure, there's no actual use-after-free here.
Sorry for the misleading title.
> As I've said before, the refcount code needs an increment op that permits
> inc-from-0. In this case, it's perfectly okay.
Given that there's currently an attempt to bail out on a zero refcount courtesy
of the refcount_read(), can't we do something like the below?
Thanks,
Mark.
diff --git a/include/linux/key.h b/include/linux/key.h
index 78e25aa..1e68ae2 100644
--- a/include/linux/key.h
+++ b/include/linux/key.h
@@ -248,6 +248,14 @@ extern struct key *key_alloc(struct key_type *type,
extern void key_invalidate(struct key *key);
extern void key_put(struct key *key);
+static inline struct key *__key_get_notzero(struct key *key)
+{
+ if (refcount_inc_not_zero(&key->usage))
+ return key;
+
+ return NULL;
+}
+
static inline struct key *__key_get(struct key *key)
{
refcount_inc(&key->usage);
diff --git a/security/keys/key.c b/security/keys/key.c
index 455c04d..f375cc6 100644
--- a/security/keys/key.c
+++ b/security/keys/key.c
@@ -661,14 +661,9 @@ struct key *key_lookup(key_serial_t id)
found:
/* pretend it doesn't exist if it is awaiting deletion */
- if (refcount_read(&key->usage) == 0)
+ if (!__key_get_notzero(key))
goto not_found;
- /* this races with key_put(), but that doesn't matter since key_put()
- * doesn't actually change the key
- */
- __key_get(key);
-
error:
spin_unlock(&key_serial_lock);
return key;
prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-05-12 16:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-05-12 14:00 next-20170510 refcount_inc() on zero / use-after-free in key_lookup() Mark Rutland
2017-05-12 15:29 ` David Howells
2017-05-12 16:22 ` Mark Rutland [this message]
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=20170512162259.GF18818@leverpostej \
--to=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dwindsor@gmail.com \
--cc=elena.reshetova@intel.com \
--cc=ishkamiel@gmail.com \
--cc=james.l.morris@oracle.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=keyrings@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/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