Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] mm: fix a UAF when vma->mm is freed after vma->vm_refcnt got dropped

From: Andrew Morton
Date: Mon Jul 28 2025 - 16:59:04 EST


On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 10:53:55 -0700 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> By inducing delays in the right places, Jann Horn created a reproducer
> for a hard to hit UAF issue that became possible after VMAs were allowed
> to be recycled by adding SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU to their cache.
>
> Race description is borrowed from Jann's discovery report:
> lock_vma_under_rcu() looks up a VMA locklessly with mas_walk() under
> rcu_read_lock(). At that point, the VMA may be concurrently freed, and
> it can be recycled by another process. vma_start_read() then
> increments the vma->vm_refcnt (if it is in an acceptable range), and
> if this succeeds, vma_start_read() can return a recycled VMA.
>
> In this scenario where the VMA has been recycled, lock_vma_under_rcu()
> will then detect the mismatching ->vm_mm pointer and drop the VMA
> through vma_end_read(), which calls vma_refcount_put().
> vma_refcount_put() drops the refcount and then calls rcuwait_wake_up()
> using a copy of vma->vm_mm. This is wrong: It implicitly assumes that
> the caller is keeping the VMA's mm alive, but in this scenario the caller
> has no relation to the VMA's mm, so the rcuwait_wake_up() can cause UAF.
>
> The diagram depicting the race:
> T1 T2 T3
> == == ==
> lock_vma_under_rcu
> mas_walk
> <VMA gets removed from mm>
> mmap
> <the same VMA is reallocated>
> vma_start_read
> __refcount_inc_not_zero_limited_acquire
> munmap
> __vma_enter_locked
> refcount_add_not_zero
> vma_end_read
> vma_refcount_put
> __refcount_dec_and_test
> rcuwait_wait_event
> <finish operation>
> rcuwait_wake_up [UAF]
>
> Note that rcuwait_wait_event() in T3 does not block because refcount
> was already dropped by T1. At this point T3 can exit and free the mm
> causing UAF in T1.
> To avoid this we move vma->vm_mm verification into vma_start_read() and
> grab vma->vm_mm to stabilize it before vma_refcount_put() operation.

Thanks, I'll add this to mm-unstable with a plan to include it in the
second batch of MM-updates->Linus next week.

> Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

The patch won't apply to 6.15 so I expect the -stable maintainers will
be asking you for a backportable version.