From 9ef04f6f050f8eb15384d478c9a737028599ccc4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Gleixner Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 16:00:24 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 2574/2944] futex: Ensure the correct return value from futex_lock_pi() to #27338374 commit 12bb3f7f1b03d5913b3f9d4236a488aa7774dfe9 upstream In case that futex_lock_pi() was aborted by a signal or a timeout and the task returned without acquiring the rtmutex, but is the designated owner of the futex due to a concurrent futex_unlock_pi() fixup_owner() is invoked to establish consistent state. In that case it invokes fixup_pi_state_owner() which in turn tries to acquire the rtmutex again. If that succeeds then it does not propagate this success to fixup_owner() and futex_lock_pi() returns -EINTR or -ETIMEOUT despite having the futex locked. Return success from fixup_pi_state_owner() in all cases where the current task owns the rtmutex and therefore the futex and propagate it correctly through fixup_owner(). Fixup the other callsite which does not expect a positive return value. Fixes: c1e2f0eaf015 ("futex: Avoid violating the 10th rule of futex") Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- futex: Replace pointless printk in fixup_owner() commit 04b79c55201f02ffd675e1231d731365e335c307 upstream If that unexpected case of inconsistent arguments ever happens then the futex state is left completely inconsistent and the printk is not really helpful. Replace it with a warning and make the state consistent. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman Fixes: CVE-2021-3347 [ shile: merge two patch for build error fix ] Signed-off-by: Shile Zhang Acked-by: Joseph Qi --- kernel/futex.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++----------------------- 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/futex.c b/kernel/futex.c index e75ad30..bbdad82 100644 --- a/kernel/futex.c +++ b/kernel/futex.c @@ -2392,8 +2392,8 @@ static int fixup_pi_state_owner(u32 __user *uaddr, struct futex_q *q, } if (__rt_mutex_futex_trylock(&pi_state->pi_mutex)) { - /* We got the lock after all, nothing to fix. */ - ret = 0; + /* We got the lock. pi_state is correct. Tell caller. */ + ret = 1; goto out_unlock; } @@ -2409,7 +2409,7 @@ static int fixup_pi_state_owner(u32 __user *uaddr, struct futex_q *q, * We raced against a concurrent self; things are * already fixed up. Nothing to do. */ - ret = 0; + ret = 1; goto out_unlock; } newowner = argowner; @@ -2455,7 +2455,7 @@ static int fixup_pi_state_owner(u32 __user *uaddr, struct futex_q *q, raw_spin_unlock(&newowner->pi_lock); raw_spin_unlock_irq(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock); - return 0; + return argowner == current; /* * In order to reschedule or handle a page fault, we need to drop the @@ -2497,7 +2497,7 @@ static int fixup_pi_state_owner(u32 __user *uaddr, struct futex_q *q, * Check if someone else fixed it for us: */ if (pi_state->owner != oldowner) { - ret = 0; + ret = argowner == current; goto out_unlock; } @@ -2530,8 +2530,6 @@ static int fixup_pi_state_owner(u32 __user *uaddr, struct futex_q *q, */ static int fixup_owner(u32 __user *uaddr, struct futex_q *q, int locked) { - int ret = 0; - if (locked) { /* * Got the lock. We might not be the anticipated owner if we @@ -2542,8 +2540,8 @@ static int fixup_owner(u32 __user *uaddr, struct futex_q *q, int locked) * stable state, anything else needs more attention. */ if (q->pi_state->owner != current) - ret = fixup_pi_state_owner(uaddr, q, current); - goto out; + return fixup_pi_state_owner(uaddr, q, current); + return 1; } /* @@ -2554,24 +2552,17 @@ static int fixup_owner(u32 __user *uaddr, struct futex_q *q, int locked) * Another speculative read; pi_state->owner == current is unstable * but needs our attention. */ - if (q->pi_state->owner == current) { - ret = fixup_pi_state_owner(uaddr, q, NULL); - goto out; - } + if (q->pi_state->owner == current) + return fixup_pi_state_owner(uaddr, q, NULL); /* * Paranoia check. If we did not take the lock, then we should not be - * the owner of the rt_mutex. + * the owner of the rt_mutex. Warn and establish consistent state. */ - if (rt_mutex_owner(&q->pi_state->pi_mutex) == current) { - printk(KERN_ERR "fixup_owner: ret = %d pi-mutex: %p " - "pi-state %p\n", ret, - q->pi_state->pi_mutex.owner, - q->pi_state->owner); - } + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(rt_mutex_owner(&q->pi_state->pi_mutex) == current)) + return fixup_pi_state_owner(uaddr, q, current); -out: - return ret ? ret : locked; + return 0; } /** @@ -3293,7 +3284,7 @@ static int futex_wait_requeue_pi(u32 __user *uaddr, unsigned int flags, if (q.pi_state && (q.pi_state->owner != current)) { spin_lock(q.lock_ptr); ret = fixup_pi_state_owner(uaddr2, &q, current); - if (ret && rt_mutex_owner(&q.pi_state->pi_mutex) == current) { + if (ret < 0 && rt_mutex_owner(&q.pi_state->pi_mutex) == current) { pi_state = q.pi_state; get_pi_state(pi_state); } @@ -3303,6 +3294,11 @@ static int futex_wait_requeue_pi(u32 __user *uaddr, unsigned int flags, */ put_pi_state(q.pi_state); spin_unlock(q.lock_ptr); + /* + * Adjust the return value. It's either -EFAULT or + * success (1) but the caller expects 0 for success. + */ + ret = ret < 0 ? ret : 0; } } else { struct rt_mutex *pi_mutex; -- 1.8.3.1