From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>
Cc: ast@kernel.org, "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
Linux-MM layout <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: bpf: use-after-free in array_map_alloc
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 14:07:03 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5742F267.3000309@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5742F127.6080000@suse.cz>
On 05/23/2016 02:01 PM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> if I read the report correctly it's not about bpf, but rather points to
>> the issue inside percpu logic.
>> First __alloc_percpu_gfp() is called, then the memory is freed with
>> free_percpu() which triggers async pcpu_balance_work and then
>> pcpu_extend_area_map is hitting use-after-free.
>> I guess bpf percpu array map is stressing this logic the most.
>
> I've been staring at it for a while (not knowing the code at all) and
> the first thing that struck me is that pcpu_extend_area_map() is done
> outside of pcpu_lock. So what prevents the chunk from being freed during
> the extend?
Erm to be precise, pcpu_lock is unlocked just before calling
pcpu_extend_area_map(), which relocks it after an allocation, and
assumes the chunk still exists at that point. Unless I'm missing
something, that's an unlocked window where chunk can be destroyed by the
workfn, as the report suggests?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-05-23 12:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-04-17 16:58 bpf: use-after-free in array_map_alloc Sasha Levin
2016-04-17 17:29 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-04-17 22:45 ` Sasha Levin
2016-05-23 12:01 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-05-23 12:07 ` Vlastimil Babka [this message]
2016-05-23 21:35 ` Tejun Heo
2016-05-23 22:13 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-05-24 8:40 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-05-24 15:30 ` Tejun Heo
2016-05-24 19:04 ` Tejun Heo
2016-05-24 20:43 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-05-25 15:44 ` [PATCH percpu/for-4.7-fixes 1/2] percpu: fix synchronization between chunk->map_extend_work and chunk destruction Tejun Heo
2016-05-26 9:19 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-05-26 19:21 ` Tejun Heo
2016-05-26 20:48 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-05-25 15:45 ` [PATCH percpu/for-4.7-fixes 2/2] percpu: fix synchronization between synchronous map extension " Tejun Heo
2016-05-26 9:48 ` Vlastimil Babka
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=5742F267.3000309@suse.cz \
--to=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sasha.levin@oracle.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).