linux-kernel - Re: Kernel crash in free_pipe

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Tue, 31 Oct 2017 04:44:49 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Kernel crash in free_pipe_info()

On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 07:08:46PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > 1. The faulty addresses are all near 0000000100000000, with one exception
> > of null (which is the most recent one)
> 
> Well, they're at 8(%rax), except for that last case.

0x10(%rax)?

> And in every case (_including_ that last case), %rax has a very
> interesting pattern.. That's the (bad) buf->ops pointer that  was
> loaded from the somehow corrupted "buf".

> So _if_ this is some kind of use-after-free thing, and the allocation
> got re-used for something else, that might just be related to whatever
> ends up being the offset that is filled in with the (int) error
> number.
> 
> Except the offset is that %r12*0x28+0x10, so we're talking a byte
> offset of 330 bytes into the allocation, and apparently the eight
> previous (0-7) iterations were fine.
> 
> Which is really odd.

I wonder what pipe->buffers is equal to here...

> I'm not seeing anything that makes sense. I'll have to think about this.
> 
> I'm assuming you don't have slub debugging enabled, and no way to
> enable it and try to catch this?

FWIW, I would try to slap
	if (buf->ops && (unsigned long)buf->ops <= 0xffffffff)
		dump the living hell out of that thing
and see what it catches...