On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 6:12 AM Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi <desmondcheon...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 21/7/21 2:24 am, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 12:35:03PM +0800, Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> In the previous thread on this series we decided to remove a patch that > >> was violating a lockdep requirement in drm_lease. In addition to this > >> change, I took a closer look at the CI logs for the Basic Acceptance Tests > >> and noticed that another regression was introduced. The new patch 2 is a > >> response to this. > >> > >> Overall, this series addresses potential use-after-free errors when > >> dereferencing pointers to struct drm_master. These were identified after > >> one such bug was caught by Syzbot in drm_getunique(): > >> https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=148d2f1dfac64af52ffd27b661981a540724f803 > >> > >> The series is broken up into five patches: > >> > >> 1. Move a call to drm_is_current_master() out from a section locked by > >> &dev->mode_config.mutex in drm_mode_getconnector(). This patch does not > >> apply to stable. > >> > >> 2. Move a call to drm_is_current_master() out from the RCU read-side > >> critical section in drm_clients_info(). > >> > >> 3. Implement a locked version of drm_is_current_master() function that's > >> used within drm_auth.c. > >> > >> 4. Serialize drm_file.master by introducing a new spinlock that's held > >> whenever the value of drm_file.master changes. > >> > >> 5. Identify areas in drm_lease.c where pointers to struct drm_master are > >> dereferenced, and ensure that the master pointers are not freed during use. > >> > >> v7 -> v8: > >> - Remove the patch that moves the call to _drm_lease_held out from the > >> section locked by &dev->mode_config.idr_mutex in __drm_mode_object_find. > >> This patch violated an existing lockdep requirement as reported by the > >> intel-gfx CI. > >> - Added a new patch that moves a call to drm_is_current_master out from > >> the RCU critical section in drm_clients_info. This was reported by the > >> intel-gfx CI. > >> > >> v6 -> v7: > >> - Modify code alignment as suggested by the intel-gfx CI. > >> - Add a new patch to the series that adds a new lock to serialize > >> drm_file.master, in response to the lockdep splat by the intel-gfx CI. > >> - Update drm_file_get_master to use the new drm_file.master_lock instead > >> of drm_device.master_mutex, in response to the lockdep splat by the > >> intel-gfx CI. > >> > >> v5 -> v6: > >> - Add a new patch to the series that moves the call to _drm_lease_held out > >> from the section locked by &dev->mode_config.idr_mutex in > >> __drm_mode_object_find. > >> - Clarify the kerneldoc for dereferencing drm_file.master, as suggested by > >> Daniel Vetter. > >> - Refactor error paths with goto labels so that each function only has a > >> single drm_master_put(), as suggested by Emil Velikov. > >> - Modify comparisons to NULL into "!master", as suggested by the intel-gfx > >> CI. > >> > >> v4 -> v5: > >> - Add a new patch to the series that moves the call to > >> drm_is_current_master in drm_mode_getconnector out from the section locked > >> by &dev->mode_config.mutex. > >> - Additionally, added a missing semicolon to the patch, caught by the > >> intel-gfx CI. > >> > >> v3 -> v4: > >> - Move the call to drm_is_current_master in drm_mode_getconnector out from > >> the section locked by &dev->mode_config.mutex. As suggested by Daniel > >> Vetter. This avoids a circular lock lock dependency as reported here > >> https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/440406/ > >> - Inside drm_is_current_master, instead of grabbing > >> &fpriv->master->dev->master_mutex, we grab > >> &fpriv->minor->dev->master_mutex to avoid dereferencing a null ptr if > >> fpriv->master is not set. > >> - Modify kerneldoc formatting for drm_file.master, as suggested by Daniel > >> Vetter. > >> - Additionally, add a file_priv->master NULL check inside > >> drm_file_get_master, and handle the NULL result accordingly in > >> drm_lease.c. As suggested by Daniel Vetter. > >> > >> v2 -> v3: > >> - Move the definition of drm_is_current_master and the _locked version > >> higher up in drm_auth.c to avoid needing a forward declaration of > >> drm_is_current_master_locked. As suggested by Daniel Vetter. > >> - Instead of leaking drm_device.master_mutex into drm_lease.c to protect > >> drm_master pointers, add a new drm_file_get_master() function that returns > >> drm_file->master while increasing its reference count, to prevent > >> drm_file->master from being freed. As suggested by Daniel Vetter. > >> > >> v1 -> v2: > >> - Move the lock and assignment before the DRM_DEBUG_LEASE in > >> drm_mode_get_lease_ioctl, as suggested by Emil Velikov. > > > > Apologies for the delay, I missed your series. Maybe just ping next time > > around there's silence. > > > > Looks all great, merged to drm-misc-next. Given how complex this was I'm > > vary of just pushing this to -fixes without some solid testing. > > > > Hi Daniel, > > Thanks for merging, more testing definitely sounds good to me. > > > One thing I noticed is that drm_is_current_master could just use the > > spinlock, since it's only doing a read access. Care to type up that patch? > > > > I thought about this too, but I'm not sure if that's the best solution. > > drm_is_current_master calls drm_lease_owner which then walks up the tree > of master lessors. The spinlock protects the master of the current drm > file, but subsequent lessors aren't protected without holding the > device's master mutex.
But this isn't a fpriv->master pointer, but a master->lessor pointer. Which should never ever be able to change (we'd have tons of uaf bugs around drm_lease_owner otherwise). So I don't think there's anything that dev->master_lock protects here that fpriv->master_lookup_lock doesn't protect already? Or am I missing something? The comment in the struct drm_master says it's protected by mode_config.idr_mutex, but that only applies to the idrs and lists I think. > > Also, do you plan to look into that idea we've discussed to flush pending > > access when we revoke a master or a lease? I think that would be really > > nice improvement here. > > -Daniel > > > > Yup, now that the potential UAFs are addressed (hopefully), I'll take a > closer look and propose a patch for this. Thanks a lot. -Daniel > > Best wishes, > Desmond > > >> > >> Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi (5): > >> drm: avoid circular locks in drm_mode_getconnector > >> drm: avoid blocking in drm_clients_info's rcu section > >> drm: add a locked version of drm_is_current_master > >> drm: serialize drm_file.master with a new spinlock > >> drm: protect drm_master pointers in drm_lease.c > >> > >> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_auth.c | 93 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- > >> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_connector.c | 5 +- > >> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_debugfs.c | 3 +- > >> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_file.c | 1 + > >> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_lease.c | 81 +++++++++++++++++++++------- > >> include/drm/drm_auth.h | 1 + > >> include/drm/drm_file.h | 18 +++++-- > >> 7 files changed, 152 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-) > >> > >> -- > >> 2.25.1 > >> > > > -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
