ARM: 9485/1: mm: acquire mmap write lock around show_pte() for user faultsgrafted

When CONFIG_DEBUG_USER=y, and cmdline "user_debug=31" is set,
a user fault may trigger show_pte() without any lock.
If another thread in the same process concurrently calls munmap(),
the page table pages may be freed while show_pte() is still traversing
them, causing a use-after-free in show_pte().

If CONFIG_ARM_LPAE=y, this may cause a kernel panic if the pages table
of PMD are freed when show_pte() is running.

Acquire mmap_write_lock() around show_pte() for user faults to fix the
contention.

For user faults, additionally restrict that show_pte() is called only
when the addr is a user-space address (addr < TASK_SIZE). This is because
the lock of tsk->mm only protects the virtual memory of user address space,
furthermore, dumping the page tables of a kernel-space address for user
faults is unnecessary and may have security implications.

Keep everything unchanged for kernel faults, because the kernel is
already in the "oops" state, acquiring a lock may risk a deadlock.

Co-developed-by: Qi Xi <xiqi2@huawei.com>

Fixes: 6d021b724481 ("ARM: dump pgd, pmd and pte states on unhandled data abort faults")
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/20260716014022.2823-1-xieyuanbin1@huawei.com
Acked-by: Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linusw@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Qi Xi <xiqi2@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Xie Yuanbin <xieyuanbin1@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>

1 files changed, 56 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/net/wireless/tests/util.c b/net/wireless/tests/util.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..118f7fb42
--- /dev/null
+++ b/net/wireless/tests/util.c
@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
+/*
+ * KUnit fixture to have a (configurable) wiphy
+ *
+ * Copyright (C) 2023 Intel Corporation
+ */
+#include <linux/ieee80211.h>
+#include <net/cfg80211.h>
+#include <kunit/test.h>
+#include <kunit/test-bug.h>
+#include "util.h"
+
+int t_wiphy_init(struct kunit_resource *resource, void *ctx)
+{
+	struct kunit *test = kunit_get_current_test();
+	struct cfg80211_ops *ops;
+	struct wiphy *wiphy;
+	struct t_wiphy_priv *priv;
+
+	ops = kzalloc_obj(*ops);
+	KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_NULL(test, ops);
+
+	wiphy = wiphy_new_nm(ops, sizeof(*priv), "kunit");
+	KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_NULL(test, wiphy);
+
+	priv = wiphy_priv(wiphy);
+	priv->ctx = ctx;
+	priv->ops = ops;
+
+	/* Initialize channels, feel free to add more here channels/bands */
+	memcpy(priv->channels_2ghz, channels_2ghz, sizeof(channels_2ghz));
+	wiphy->bands[NL80211_BAND_2GHZ] = &priv->band_2ghz;
+	priv->band_2ghz.channels = priv->channels_2ghz;
+	priv->band_2ghz.n_channels = ARRAY_SIZE(channels_2ghz);
+
+	resource->data = wiphy;
+	resource->name = "wiphy";
+
+	return 0;
+}
+
+void t_wiphy_exit(struct kunit_resource *resource)
+{
+	struct t_wiphy_priv *priv;
+	struct cfg80211_ops *ops;
+
+	priv = wiphy_priv(resource->data);
+	ops = priv->ops;
+
+	/* Should we ensure anything about the state here?
+	 * e.g. full destruction or no calls to any ops on destruction?
+	 */
+
+	wiphy_free(resource->data);
+	kfree(ops);
+}