linux-kernel - Re: usb: use-after-free write in usb_hcd_link_urb_to

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 23 Mar 2017 11:04:19 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        <mathias.nyman@...ux.intel.com>, <baoyou.xie@...aro.org>,
        <peter.chen@....com>, <wulf@...k-chips.com>,
        <wsa-dev@...g-engineering.com>, <javier@....samsung.com>,
        <chris.bainbridge@...il.com>, USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: usb: use-after-free write in usb_hcd_link_urb_to_ep

On Thu, 23 Mar 2017, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:

> > Putting these together:
> >
> >         The memory was allocated in usb_internal_control_msg() line 93.
> >         The later events occurred within the call in line 100 to
> >         usb_start_wait_urb().
> >
> >         The invalid access occurred within usb_start_wait_urb() line 56.
> >
> >         The memory was deallocated within usb_start_wait_urb() line 78.
> >
> > Since these routines don't involve any loops or backward jumps, this
> > says that the invalid access occurred before the memory was
> > deallocated!  So why is it reported as a problem?
> 
> 
> My first guess would be that pid 3348 did 2 calls to open and the urb
> was somehow referenced across these calls. Is it possible?

I don't think so.  The URB gets allocated and deallocated separately
for each call.  You can see this very plainly by reading the source 
code for usb_internal_control_msg() and usb_start_wait_urb().

It's possible that the same memory location was allocated and
deallocated for two different calls at different times.  That wouldn't
fool syzkaller, would it?

Alan Stern