futex: Fix more put_pi_state() vs. exit_pi_state_list() races

Dmitry (through syzbot) reported being able to trigger the WARN in
get_pi_state() and a use-after-free on:

	raw_spin_lock_irq(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);

Both are due to this race:

  exit_pi_state_list()				put_pi_state()

  lock(&curr->pi_lock)
  while() {
	pi_state = list_first_entry(head);
	hb = hash_futex(&pi_state->key);
	unlock(&curr->pi_lock);

						dec_and_test(&pi_state->refcount);

	lock(&hb->lock)
	lock(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock)	// uaf if pi_state free'd
	lock(&curr->pi_lock);

	....

	unlock(&curr->pi_lock);
	get_pi_state();				// WARN; refcount==0

The problem is we take the reference count too late, and don't allow it
being 0. Fix it by using inc_not_zero() and simply retrying the loop
when we fail to get a refcount. In that case put_pi_state() should
remove the entry from the list.
Reported-by: NDmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Signed-off-by: NPeter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: NThomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Gratian Crisan <gratian.crisan@ni.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: dvhart@infradead.org
Cc: syzbot <bot+2af19c9e1ffe4d4ee1d16c56ae7580feaee75765@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>
Cc: syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Fixes: c74aef2d ("futex: Fix pi_state->owner serialization")
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20171031101853.xpfh72y643kdfhjs@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.netSigned-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>

kernel/futex.c

@@ -903,11 +903,27 @@ void exit_pi_state_list(struct task_struct *curr)
 	 */
 	raw_spin_lock_irq(&curr->pi_lock);
 	while (!list_empty(head)) {
-
 		next = head->next;
 		pi_state = list_entry(next, struct futex_pi_state, list);
 		key = pi_state->key;
 		hb = hash_futex(&key);
+
+		/*
+		 * We can race against put_pi_state() removing itself from the
+		 * list (a waiter going away). put_pi_state() will first
+		 * decrement the reference count and then modify the list, so
+		 * its possible to see the list entry but fail this reference
+		 * acquire.
+		 *
+		 * In that case; drop the locks to let put_pi_state() make
+		 * progress and retry the loop.
+		 */
+		if (!atomic_inc_not_zero(&pi_state->refcount)) {
+			raw_spin_unlock_irq(&curr->pi_lock);
+			cpu_relax();
+			raw_spin_lock_irq(&curr->pi_lock);
+			continue;
+		}
 		raw_spin_unlock_irq(&curr->pi_lock);
 
 		spin_lock(&hb->lock);
@@ -918,8 +934,10 @@ void exit_pi_state_list(struct task_struct *curr)
 		 * task still owns the PI-state:
 		 */
 		if (head->next != next) {
+			/* retain curr->pi_lock for the loop invariant */
 			raw_spin_unlock(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
 			spin_unlock(&hb->lock);
+			put_pi_state(pi_state);
 			continue;
 		}
 
@@ -927,9 +945,8 @@ void exit_pi_state_list(struct task_struct *curr)
 		WARN_ON(list_empty(&pi_state->list));
 		list_del_init(&pi_state->list);
 		pi_state->owner = NULL;
-		raw_spin_unlock(&curr->pi_lock);
 
-		get_pi_state(pi_state);
+		raw_spin_unlock(&curr->pi_lock);
 		raw_spin_unlock_irq(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
 		spin_unlock(&hb->lock);