Re: [PATCH mm 2/4] kasan: handle concurrent kasan_record_aux_stack calls

[Marco Elver]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 at 01:14, <andrey.konovalov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> kasan_record_aux_stack can be called concurrently on the same object.
> This might lead to a race condition when rotating the saved aux stack
> trace handles.
>
> Fix by introducing a spinlock to protect the aux stack trace handles
> in kasan_record_aux_stack.
>
> Reported-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reported-by: syzbot+186b55175d8360728234@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/000000000000784b1c060b0074a2@xxxxxxxxxx/
> Signed-off-by: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> ---
>
> This can be squashed into "kasan: use stack_depot_put for Generic mode"
> or left standalone.
> ---
>  mm/kasan/generic.c | 15 +++++++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/kasan/generic.c b/mm/kasan/generic.c
> index 54e20b2bc3e1..ca5c75a1866c 100644
> --- a/mm/kasan/generic.c
> +++ b/mm/kasan/generic.c
> @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
>  #include <linux/sched.h>
>  #include <linux/sched/task_stack.h>
>  #include <linux/slab.h>
> +#include <linux/spinlock.h>
>  #include <linux/stackdepot.h>
>  #include <linux/stacktrace.h>
>  #include <linux/string.h>
> @@ -35,6 +36,8 @@
>  #include "kasan.h"
>  #include "../slab.h"
>
> +DEFINE_SPINLOCK(aux_lock);

No, please don't.

>  /*
>   * All functions below always inlined so compiler could
>   * perform better optimizations in each of __asan_loadX/__assn_storeX
> @@ -502,6 +505,8 @@ static void __kasan_record_aux_stack(void *addr, depot_flags_t depot_flags)
>         struct kmem_cache *cache;
>         struct kasan_alloc_meta *alloc_meta;
>         void *object;
> +       depot_stack_handle_t new_handle, old_handle;
> +       unsigned long flags;
>
>         if (is_kfence_address(addr) || !slab)
>                 return;
> @@ -512,9 +517,15 @@ static void __kasan_record_aux_stack(void *addr, depot_flags_t depot_flags)
>         if (!alloc_meta)
>                 return;
>
> -       stack_depot_put(alloc_meta->aux_stack[1]);
> +       new_handle = kasan_save_stack(0, depot_flags);
> +
> +       spin_lock_irqsave(&aux_lock, flags);

This is a unnecessary global lock. What's the problem here? As far as
I can understand a race is possible where we may end up with
duplicated or lost stack handles.

Since storing this information is best effort anyway, and bugs are
rare, a global lock protecting this is overkill.

I'd just accept the racyness and use READ_ONCE() / WRITE_ONCE() just
to make sure we don't tear any reads/writes and the depot handles are
valid. There are other more complex schemes [1], but I think they are
overkill as well.

[1]: Since a depot stack handle is just an u32, we can have a

 union {
   depot_stack_handle_t handles[2];
   atomic64_t atomic_handle;
  } aux_stack;
(BUILD_BUG_ON somewhere if sizeof handles and atomic_handle mismatch.)

Then in the code here create the same union and load atomic_handle.
Swap handle[1] into handle[0] and write the new one in handles[1].
Then do a cmpxchg loop to store the new atomic_handle.

> +       old_handle = alloc_meta->aux_stack[1];
>         alloc_meta->aux_stack[1] = alloc_meta->aux_stack[0];
> -       alloc_meta->aux_stack[0] = kasan_save_stack(0, depot_flags);
> +       alloc_meta->aux_stack[0] = new_handle;
> +       spin_unlock_irqrestore(&aux_lock, flags);
> +
> +       stack_depot_put(old_handle);
>  }
>
>  void kasan_record_aux_stack(void *addr)
> --
> 2.25.1
>