Re: KASAN: use-after-free Read in percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic_rcu

[Jens Axboe]

On 3/6/20 10:00 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 3/6/20 9:44 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 04:36:20PM +0100, Jann Horn wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 4:34 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 3/6/20 7:57 AM, Jann Horn wrote:
>>>>> +paulmck
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 3:40 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/4/20 12:59 AM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 9:14 AM syzbot
>>>>>>> <syzbot+e017e49c39ab484ac87a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> syzbot found the following crash on:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> HEAD commit:    4c7d00cc Merge tag 'pwm/for-5.6-rc1' of git://git.kernel.o..
>>>>>>>> git tree:       upstream
>>>>>>>> console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=12fec785e00000
>>>>>>>> kernel config:  https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=e162021ddededa72
>>>>>>>> dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=e017e49c39ab484ac87a
>>>>>>>> compiler:       clang version 10.0.0 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/ c2443155a0fb245c8f17f2c1c72b6ea391e86e81)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unfortunately, I don't have any reproducer for this crash yet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IMPORTANT: if you fix the bug, please add the following tag to the commit:
>>>>>>>> Reported-by: syzbot+e017e49c39ab484ac87a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +io_uring maintainers
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here is a repro:
>>>>>>> https://gist.githubusercontent.com/dvyukov/6b340beab6483a036f4186e7378882ce/raw/cd1922185516453c201df8eded1d4b006a6d6a3a/gistfile1.txt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've queued up a fix for this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://git.kernel.dk/cgit/linux-block/commit/?h=io_uring-5.6&id=9875fe3dc4b8cff1f1b440fb925054a5124403c3
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe that this fix relies on call_rcu() having FIFO ordering; but
>>>>> <https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/RCU/Design/Memory-Ordering/Tree-RCU-Memory-Ordering.html#Callback%20Registry>
>>>>> says:
>>>>>
>>>>> | call_rcu() normally acts only on CPU-local state[...] It simply
>>>>> enqueues the rcu_head structure on a per-CPU list,
>>
>> Indeed.  For but one example, if there was a CPU-to-CPU migration between
>> the two call_rcu() invocations, it would not be at all surprising for
>> the two callbacks to execute out of order.
>>
>>>>> Is this fix really correct?
>>>>
>>>> That's a good point, there's a potentially stronger guarantee we need
>>>> here that isn't "nobody is inside an RCU critical section", but rather
>>>> that we're depending on a previous call_rcu() to have happened. Hence I
>>>> think you are right - it'll shrink the window drastically, since the
>>>> previous callback is already queued up, but it's not a full close.
>>>>
>>>> Hmm...
>>>
>>> You could potentially hack up the semantics you want by doing a
>>> call_rcu() whose callback does another call_rcu(), or something like
>>> that - but I'd like to hear paulmck's opinion on this first.
>>
>> That would work!
>>
>> Or, alternatively, do an rcu_barrier() between the two calls to
>> call_rcu(), assuming that the use case can tolerate rcu_barrier()
>> overhead and latency.
> 
> If the nested call_rcu() works, that seems greatly preferable to needing
> the rcu_barrier(), even if that would not be a showstopper for me. The
> nested call_rcu() is just a bit odd, but with a comment it should be OK.
> 
> Incremental here I'm going to test, would just fold in of course.

Been running for a few minutes just fine, I'm going to leave the
reproducer beating on it for a few hours. But here's the folded in
final:

https://git.kernel.dk/cgit/linux-block/commit/?h=io_uring-5.6&id=fae702294a6a0774ceb3cf250be79e7fe207250a

-- 
Jens Axboe