lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Nov]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86: Pin task-stack in __get_wchan()
From


On 11/19/21 5:29 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 06:04:27PM -0800, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 01:11:09PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>>> I now have the below, the only thing missing is that there's a
>>> user_mode() call on a stack based regs. Now on x86_64 we can
>>> __get_kernel_nofault() regs->cs and call it a day, but on i386 we have
>>> to also fetch regs->flags.
>>>
>>> Is this really the way to go?
>>
>> Please no. Can we just add a check in unwind_start() to ensure the
>> caller did try_get_task_stack()?
>
> I tried; but at best it's fundamentally racy and in practise its worse
> because init_task doesn't seem to believe in refcounts and kthreads are
> odd for some raisin. Now those are fixable, but given the fundamental
> races, I don't see how it's ever going to be reliable.
>
> I don't mind the __get_kernel_nofault() usage and think I can do a
> better implementation that will allow us to get rid of the
> pagefault_{dis,en}able() sprinkling, but that's for another day. It's
> just the user_mode(regs) usage that's going to be somewhat ugleh.
>
> Anyway, below is the minimal fix for the situation at hand. I'm not
> going to be around much today, so if Linus wants to pick that up instead
> of mass revert things that's obviously fine too.
>
> ---
> Subject: x86: Pin task-stack in __get_wchan()
>
> When commit 5d1ceb3969b6 ("x86: Fix __get_wchan() for !STACKTRACE")
> moved from stacktrace to native unwind_*() usage, the
> try_get_task_stack() got lost, leading to use-after-free issues for
> dying tasks.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/process.c | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
> index e9ee8b526319..04143a653a8a 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
> @@ -964,6 +964,9 @@ unsigned long __get_wchan(struct task_struct *p)
> struct unwind_state state;
> unsigned long addr = 0;
>
> + if (!try_get_task_stack(p))
> + return 0;
> +
> for (unwind_start(&state, p, NULL, NULL); !unwind_done(&state);
> unwind_next_frame(&state)) {
> addr = unwind_get_return_address(&state);
> @@ -974,6 +977,8 @@ unsigned long __get_wchan(struct task_struct *p)
> break;
> }
>
> + put_task_stack(p);
> +
> return addr;
> }
>
>

This implementation is very similar to stack_trace_save_tsk(), maybe we
can just move stack_trace_save_tsk() out of CONFIG_STACKTRACE and reuse
it.

--
Thanks,
Qi

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-11-19 11:04    [W:0.120 / U:0.544 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site