[PATCH] drm: Lock pointer access in drm_master_release()

[Emil Velikov]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 at 11:10, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 05:21:19PM +0800, Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi wrote:
> > This patch eliminates the following smatch warning:
> > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_auth.c:320 drm_master_release() warn: unlocked access 'master' (line 318) expected lock '&dev->master_mutex'
> >
> > The 'file_priv->master' field should be protected by the mutex lock to
> > '&dev->master_mutex'. This is because other processes can concurrently
> > modify this field and free the current 'file_priv->master'
> > pointer. This could result in a use-after-free error when 'master' is
> > dereferenced in subsequent function calls to
> > 'drm_legacy_lock_master_cleanup()' or to 'drm_lease_revoke()'.
> >
> > An example of a scenario that would produce this error can be seen
> > from a similar bug in 'drm_getunique()' that was reported by Syzbot:
> > https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=148d2f1dfac64af52ffd27b661981a540724f803
> >
> > In the Syzbot report, another process concurrently acquired the
> > device's master mutex in 'drm_setmaster_ioctl()', then overwrote
> > 'fpriv->master' in 'drm_new_set_master()'. The old value of
> > 'fpriv->master' was subsequently freed before the mutex was unlocked.
> >
> > Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter at oracle.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi <desmondcheongzx at gmail.com>
>
> Thanks a lot. I've done an audit of this code, and I found another
> potential problem in drm_is_current_master. The callers from drm_auth.c
> hold the dev->master_mutex, but all the external ones dont. I think we
> need to split this into a _locked function for use within drm_auth.c, and
> the exported one needs to grab the dev->master_mutex while it's checking
> master status. Ofc there will still be races, those are ok, but right now
> we run the risk of use-after free problems in drm_lease_owner.
>
Note that some code does acquire the mutex via
drm_master_internal_acquire - so we should be careful.
As mentioned elsewhere - having a _locked version of
drm_is_current_master sounds good.

Might as well throw a lockdep_assert_held_once in there just in case :-P

Happy to help review the follow-up patches.
-Emil