On 3/24/26 22:35, Jann Horn wrote:
> Disable CONFIG_KVFREE_RCU_BATCHED in CONFIG_RCU_STRICT_GRACE_PERIOD builds
> so that kernel fuzzers have an easier time finding use-after-free involving
> kfree_rcu().
>
> The intent behind CONFIG_RCU_STRICT_GRACE_PERIOD is that RCU should invoke
> callbacks and free objects as soon as possible (at a large performance
> cost) so that kernel fuzzers and such have an easier time detecting
> use-after-free bugs in objects with RCU lifetime.
>
> CONFIG_KVFREE_RCU_BATCHED is a performance optimization that queues
> RCU-freed objects in ways that CONFIG_RCU_STRICT_GRACE_PERIOD can't
> expedite; for example, the following testcase doesn't trigger a KASAN splat
> when CONFIG_KVFREE_RCU_BATCHED is enabled:
> ```
> struct foo_struct {
> struct rcu_head rcu;
> int a;
> };
> struct foo_struct *foo = kmalloc(sizeof(*foo),
> GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOFAIL | __GFP_ZERO);
>
> pr_info("%s: calling kfree_rcu()\n", __func__);
> kfree_rcu(foo, rcu);
> msleep(10);
> pr_info("%s: start UAF access\n", __func__);
> READ_ONCE(foo->a);
> pr_info("%s: end UAF access\n", __func__);
> ```
>
> Signed-off-by: Jann Horn <[email protected]>
Hm but with 7.0 we have sheaves everywhere including kmalloc caches, and
there's a percpu rcu_free sheaf collecting kfree_rcu'd objects. Only when
it's full it's submitted to call_rcu() where the callback rcu_free_sheaf()
runs slab_free_hook() including kasan hooks etc. If there's nothing filling
the rcu_free sheaf, the objects can sit there possibly indefinitely.
That means CONFIG_KVFREE_RCU_BATCHED now handles only the rare cases where
kfree_rcu() to the rcu_free sheaf fails (and I still owe it to Ulad to do
something about this).
So to complete the intent of this patch, we should perhaps also skip the
rcu_free sheaf with RCU_STRICT_GRACE_PERIOD? (or with !KVFREE_RCU_BATCHED
perhaps as it's also a form of batching).
But then I wonder if the testcase in the changelog appeared to be fixed with
this patch on a 7.0-rcX kernel (base-commit: below is rc3+) because by my
understanding it shouldn't have been. (unless there happened to be enough
kfree_rcu() activity on that cpu+kmalloc cache combination, so that the
rcu_free sheaf got submitted withing that msleep(10)).
> ---
> mm/Kconfig | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/mm/Kconfig b/mm/Kconfig
> index ebd8ea353687..67a72fe89186 100644
> --- a/mm/Kconfig
> +++ b/mm/Kconfig
> @@ -172,6 +172,7 @@ config SLUB
> config KVFREE_RCU_BATCHED
> def_bool y
> depends on !SLUB_TINY && !TINY_RCU
> + depends on !RCU_STRICT_GRACE_PERIOD
>
> config SLUB_TINY
> bool "Configure for minimal memory footprint"
>
> ---
> base-commit: b29fb8829bff243512bb8c8908fd39406f9fd4c3
> change-id: 20260324-kasan-kfree-rcu-4e7f490237ef
>
> --
> Jann Horn <[email protected]>
>
