thunderbolt: Fix NULL dereference in tb_remove_work()grafted

There is a slight race between tb_remove_work() and tb_domain_remove()
which leads to dereferencing a NULL tb->root_switch pointer inside
tb_free_unplugged_xdomains():

        Thread A                            Thread B

  tb_remove_work()
                                    tb_domain_remove()
                                      mutex_lock(&tb->lock)
                                      tb_stop()
                                        /* doesn't cancel a running callback */
                                        cancel_delayed_work(&tcm->remove_work)
                                        ...
                                        tb_switch_remove(tb->root_switch)
                                        tb->root_switch = NULL
                                      mutex_unlock(&tb->lock)
    mutex_lock(&tb->lock)
    ...
    /* without checking ->root_switch */
    tb_free_unplugged_xdomains(tb->root_switch)
    mutex_unlock(&tb->lock)

Commit a8937f35cf39 ("thunderbolt: Remove XDomain from the bus without
holding tb->lock") doesn't seem right to move tb_free_unplugged_xdomains()
out of the &tb->lock section and the check for tb->root_switch, in
particular.  It states:

  For this reason separate removing the XDomain from the topology data
  structures (where we need the lock) from unregistering the device from
  the bus (where remove callbacks of the drivers are being called).

tb_free_unplugged_xdomains() belongs to the former group of functions
requiring the lock.  And it also calls tb_xdomain_remove() which should
only be called with &tb->lock held.

Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with Svace static
analysis tool.

Fixes: a8937f35cf39 ("thunderbolt: Remove XDomain from the bus without holding tb->lock")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Fedor Pchelkin <pchelkin@ispras.ru>
Signed-off-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>

1 files changed, 144 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/userspace-api/check_exec.rst b/Documentation/userspace-api/check_exec.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..05dfe3b56
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/userspace-api/check_exec.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,144 @@
+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+.. Copyright © 2024 Microsoft Corporation
+
+===================
+Executability check
+===================
+
+The ``AT_EXECVE_CHECK`` :manpage:`execveat(2)` flag, and the
+``SECBIT_EXEC_RESTRICT_FILE`` and ``SECBIT_EXEC_DENY_INTERACTIVE`` securebits
+are intended for script interpreters and dynamic linkers to enforce a
+consistent execution security policy handled by the kernel.  See the
+`samples/check-exec/inc.c`_ example.
+
+Whether an interpreter should check these securebits or not depends on the
+security risk of running malicious scripts with respect to the execution
+environment, and whether the kernel can check if a script is trustworthy or
+not.  For instance, Python scripts running on a server can use arbitrary
+syscalls and access arbitrary files.  Such interpreters should then be
+enlighten to use these securebits and let users define their security policy.
+However, a JavaScript engine running in a web browser should already be
+sandboxed and then should not be able to harm the user's environment.
+
+Script interpreters or dynamic linkers built for tailored execution environments
+(e.g. hardened Linux distributions or hermetic container images) could use
+``AT_EXECVE_CHECK`` without checking the related securebits if backward
+compatibility is handled by something else (e.g. atomic update ensuring that
+all legitimate libraries are allowed to be executed).  It is then recommended
+for script interpreters and dynamic linkers to check the securebits at run time
+by default, but also to provide the ability for custom builds to behave like if
+``SECBIT_EXEC_RESTRICT_FILE`` or ``SECBIT_EXEC_DENY_INTERACTIVE`` were always
+set to 1 (i.e. always enforce restrictions).
+
+AT_EXECVE_CHECK
+===============
+
+Passing the ``AT_EXECVE_CHECK`` flag to :manpage:`execveat(2)` only performs a
+check on a regular file and returns 0 if execution of this file would be
+allowed, ignoring the file format and then the related interpreter dependencies
+(e.g. ELF libraries, script's shebang).
+
+Programs should always perform this check to apply kernel-level checks against
+files that are not directly executed by the kernel but passed to a user space
+interpreter instead.  All files that contain executable code, from the point of
+view of the interpreter, should be checked.  However the result of this check
+should only be enforced according to ``SECBIT_EXEC_RESTRICT_FILE`` or
+``SECBIT_EXEC_DENY_INTERACTIVE.``.
+
+The main purpose of this flag is to improve the security and consistency of an
+execution environment to ensure that direct file execution (e.g.
+``./script.sh``) and indirect file execution (e.g. ``sh script.sh``) lead to
+the same result.  For instance, this can be used to check if a file is
+trustworthy according to the caller's environment.
+
+In a secure environment, libraries and any executable dependencies should also
+be checked.  For instance, dynamic linking should make sure that all libraries
+are allowed for execution to avoid trivial bypass (e.g. using ``LD_PRELOAD``).
+For such secure execution environment to make sense, only trusted code should
+be executable, which also requires integrity guarantees.
+
+To avoid race conditions leading to time-of-check to time-of-use issues,
+``AT_EXECVE_CHECK`` should be used with ``AT_EMPTY_PATH`` to check against a
+file descriptor instead of a path.
+
+SECBIT_EXEC_RESTRICT_FILE and SECBIT_EXEC_DENY_INTERACTIVE
+==========================================================
+
+When ``SECBIT_EXEC_RESTRICT_FILE`` is set, a process should only interpret or
+execute a file if a call to :manpage:`execveat(2)` with the related file
+descriptor and the ``AT_EXECVE_CHECK`` flag succeed.
+
+This secure bit may be set by user session managers, service managers,
+container runtimes, sandboxer tools...  Except for test environments, the
+related ``SECBIT_EXEC_RESTRICT_FILE_LOCKED`` bit should also be set.
+
+Programs should only enforce consistent restrictions according to the
+securebits but without relying on any other user-controlled configuration.
+Indeed, the use case for these securebits is to only trust executable code
+vetted by the system configuration (through the kernel), so we should be
+careful to not let untrusted users control this configuration.
+
+However, script interpreters may still use user configuration such as
+environment variables as long as it is not a way to disable the securebits
+checks.  For instance, the ``PATH`` and ``LD_PRELOAD`` variables can be set by
+a script's caller.  Changing these variables may lead to unintended code
+executions, but only from vetted executable programs, which is OK.  For this to
+make sense, the system should provide a consistent security policy to avoid
+arbitrary code execution e.g., by enforcing a write xor execute policy.
+
+When ``SECBIT_EXEC_DENY_INTERACTIVE`` is set, a process should never interpret
+interactive user commands (e.g. scripts).  However, if such commands are passed
+through a file descriptor (e.g. stdin), its content should be interpreted if a
+call to :manpage:`execveat(2)` with the related file descriptor and the
+``AT_EXECVE_CHECK`` flag succeed.
+
+For instance, script interpreters called with a script snippet as argument
+should always deny such execution if ``SECBIT_EXEC_DENY_INTERACTIVE`` is set.
+
+This secure bit may be set by user session managers, service managers,
+container runtimes, sandboxer tools...  Except for test environments, the
+related ``SECBIT_EXEC_DENY_INTERACTIVE_LOCKED`` bit should also be set.
+
+Here is the expected behavior for a script interpreter according to combination
+of any exec securebits:
+
+1. ``SECBIT_EXEC_RESTRICT_FILE=0`` and ``SECBIT_EXEC_DENY_INTERACTIVE=0``
+
+   Always interpret scripts, and allow arbitrary user commands (default).
+
+   No threat, everyone and everything is trusted, but we can get ahead of
+   potential issues thanks to the call to :manpage:`execveat(2)` with
+   ``AT_EXECVE_CHECK`` which should always be performed but ignored by the
+   script interpreter.  Indeed, this check is still important to enable systems
+   administrators to verify requests (e.g. with audit) and prepare for
+   migration to a secure mode.
+
+2. ``SECBIT_EXEC_RESTRICT_FILE=1`` and ``SECBIT_EXEC_DENY_INTERACTIVE=0``
+
+   Deny script interpretation if they are not executable, but allow
+   arbitrary user commands.
+
+   The threat is (potential) malicious scripts run by trusted (and not fooled)
+   users.  That can protect against unintended script executions (e.g. ``sh
+   /tmp/*.sh``).  This makes sense for (semi-restricted) user sessions.
+
+3. ``SECBIT_EXEC_RESTRICT_FILE=0`` and ``SECBIT_EXEC_DENY_INTERACTIVE=1``
+
+   Always interpret scripts, but deny arbitrary user commands.
+
+   This use case may be useful for secure services (i.e. without interactive
+   user session) where scripts' integrity is verified (e.g.  with IMA/EVM or
+   dm-verity/IPE) but where access rights might not be ready yet.  Indeed,
+   arbitrary interactive commands would be much more difficult to check.
+
+4. ``SECBIT_EXEC_RESTRICT_FILE=1`` and ``SECBIT_EXEC_DENY_INTERACTIVE=1``
+
+   Deny script interpretation if they are not executable, and also deny
+   any arbitrary user commands.
+
+   The threat is malicious scripts run by untrusted users (but trusted code).
+   This makes sense for system services that may only execute trusted scripts.
+
+.. Links
+.. _samples/check-exec/inc.c:
+   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/samples/check-exec/inc.c