[PATCH] configfs: fix a race in configfs_lookup()

[PATCH] configfs: fix a race in configfs_lookup()

[Kyle Zeng]

commit c42dd069be8dfc9b2239a5c89e73bbd08ab35de0 upstream.
Backporting the patch to stable-v5.10.y to avoid race condition between configfs_dir_lseek and
configfs_lookup since they both operate ->s_childre and configfs_lookup
forgets to obtain the lock.
The patch deviates from the original patch because of code change.
The idea is to hold the configfs_dirent_lock when traversing
->s_children, which follows the core idea of the original patch.


Signed-off-by: Kyle Zeng <zengyhkyle@gmail.com>
---
 fs/configfs/dir.c | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/fs/configfs/dir.c b/fs/configfs/dir.c
index 12388ed4faa5..0b7e9ab517d5 100644
--- a/fs/configfs/dir.c
+++ b/fs/configfs/dir.c
@@ -479,6 +479,7 @@ static struct dentry * configfs_lookup(struct inode *dir,
 	if (!configfs_dirent_is_ready(parent_sd))
 		goto out;
 
+	spin_lock(&configfs_dirent_lock);
 	list_for_each_entry(sd, &parent_sd->s_children, s_sibling) {
 		if (sd->s_type & CONFIGFS_NOT_PINNED) {
 			const unsigned char * name = configfs_get_name(sd);
@@ -491,6 +492,7 @@ static struct dentry * configfs_lookup(struct inode *dir,
 			break;
 		}
 	}
+	spin_unlock(&configfs_dirent_lock);
 
 	if (!found) {
 		/*
-- 
2.34.1

Re: [PATCH] configfs: fix a race in configfs_lookup()

[Greg KH]

On Sat, Sep 02, 2023 at 01:20:36PM -0700, Kyle Zeng wrote:
> commit c42dd069be8dfc9b2239a5c89e73bbd08ab35de0 upstream.
> Backporting the patch to stable-v5.10.y to avoid race condition between configfs_dir_lseek and
> configfs_lookup since they both operate ->s_childre and configfs_lookup
> forgets to obtain the lock.
> The patch deviates from the original patch because of code change.
> The idea is to hold the configfs_dirent_lock when traversing
> ->s_children, which follows the core idea of the original patch.
> 
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kyle Zeng <zengyhkyle@gmail.com>
> ---
>  fs/configfs/dir.c | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

You lost all the original signed-off-by lines of the original, AND you
lost the authorship of the original commit.  And you didn't cc: anyone
involved in the original patch, to get their review, or objection to it
being backported.

Take a look at many of the backports that happen on the stable list for
examples of how to do this properly.

Here are 2 examples from this weekend alone that are good examples of
how to do this properly:
	https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230902151000.3817-1-konishi.ryusuke@gmail.com
	https://lore.kernel.org/r/cover.1693593288.git.luizcap@amazon.com

Also, how did you test this change?  is this something that you have
actually hit in real life?

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH] configfs: fix a race in configfs_lookup()

[Kyle Zeng]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 831 bytes --]

> You lost all the original signed-off-by lines of the original, AND you
> lost the authorship of the original commit.  And you didn't cc: anyone
> involved in the original patch, to get their review, or objection to it
> being backported.
Sorry for the rookie mistakes. I drafted another version and it is
attached to the email. Can you please check whether it is OK?

> Also, how did you test this change?  is this something that you have
> actually hit in real life?
Yes. I encountered this when testing the latest v5.10.y branch. A
minimal proof-of-concept code looks like this:
~~~
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <fcntl.h>
#include <unistd.h>

int main(void)
{
	int fd = open("/sys/kernel/config", 0);

	if(!fork()) {
		while(1) lseek(fd, SEEK_CUR, 1);
	}
	while(1) unlinkat(fd, "file", 0);

	return 0;
}
~~~

[-- Attachment #2: 0001-configfs-fix-a-race-in-configfs_lookup.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 1943 bytes --]

From 366d165e876a14a5b25ad741fdcd8658aa7e690d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Kyle Zeng <zengyhkyle@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2023 17:41:14 -0700
Subject: [PATCH v5.10.y] configfs: fix a race in configfs_lookup()

commit c42dd069be8dfc9b2239a5c89e73bbd08ab35de0 upstream.

configfs: fix a race in configfs_lookup()
When configfs_lookup() is executing list_for_each_entry(),
it is possible that configfs_dir_lseek() is calling list_del().
Some unfortunate interleavings of them can cause a kernel NULL
pointer dereference error

Thread 1                  Thread 2
//configfs_dir_lseek()    //configfs_lookup()
list_del(&cursor->s_sibling);
                         list_for_each_entry(sd, ...)

Fix this by grabbing configfs_dirent_lock in configfs_lookup()
while iterating ->s_children.

Signed-off-by: Sishuai Gong <sishuai@purdue.edu>
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Signed-off-by: Kyle Zeng <zengyhkyle@gmail.com>
---
Please apply this patch to v5.10.y. This patch adapts the original patch
to v5.10.y considering codebase change.
The idea is to hold the configfs_dirent_lock when traversing
->s_children, which follows the core idea of the original patch.

This patch has been tested against the v5.10.y stable tree.

 fs/configfs/dir.c | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/fs/configfs/dir.c b/fs/configfs/dir.c
index 12388ed4faa5..0b7e9ab517d5 100644
--- a/fs/configfs/dir.c
+++ b/fs/configfs/dir.c
@@ -479,6 +479,7 @@ static struct dentry * configfs_lookup(struct inode *dir,
 	if (!configfs_dirent_is_ready(parent_sd))
 		goto out;
 
+	spin_lock(&configfs_dirent_lock);
 	list_for_each_entry(sd, &parent_sd->s_children, s_sibling) {
 		if (sd->s_type & CONFIGFS_NOT_PINNED) {
 			const unsigned char * name = configfs_get_name(sd);
@@ -491,6 +492,7 @@ static struct dentry * configfs_lookup(struct inode *dir,
 			break;
 		}
 	}
+	spin_unlock(&configfs_dirent_lock);
 
 	if (!found) {
 		/*
-- 
2.34.1

Re: [PATCH] configfs: fix a race in configfs_lookup()

[Greg KH]

On Sat, Sep 02, 2023 at 02:55:14PM -0700, Kyle Zeng wrote:
> > You lost all the original signed-off-by lines of the original, AND you
> > lost the authorship of the original commit.  And you didn't cc: anyone
> > involved in the original patch, to get their review, or objection to it
> > being backported.
> Sorry for the rookie mistakes. I drafted another version and it is
> attached to the email. Can you please check whether it is OK?

Good enough, thanks!  Now queued up.

greg k-h