linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH -v3] ext4: fix possible UAF when remounting r/o a mmp-protected file system

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]

Message-ID: <20210706194910.GC17149@quack2.suse.cz>
Date:   Tue, 6 Jul 2021 21:49:10 +0200
From:   Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc:     Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Ye Bin <yebin10@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v3] ext4: fix possible UAF when remounting r/o a
 mmp-protected file system

On Tue 06-07-21 13:12:08, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> After commit 618f003199c6 ("ext4: fix memory leak in
> ext4_fill_super"), after the file system is remounted read-only, there
> is a race where the kmmpd thread can exit, causing sbi->s_mmp_tsk to
> point at freed memory, which the call to ext4_stop_mmpd() can trip
> over.
> 
> Fix this by only allowing kmmpd() to exit when it is stopped via
> ext4_stop_mmpd().
> 
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/YONtEGojq7LcXnuC@mit.edu
> Reported-by: Ye Bin <yebin10@...wei.com>
> Bug-Report-Link: <20210629143603.2166962-1-yebin10@...wei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>

The patch looks mostly fine. Two comments below.

> @@ -242,9 +237,13 @@ static int kmmpd(void *data)
>  	mmp->mmp_seq = cpu_to_le32(EXT4_MMP_SEQ_CLEAN);
>  	mmp->mmp_time = cpu_to_le64(ktime_get_real_seconds());
>  
> -	retval = write_mmp_block(sb, bh);
> +	return write_mmp_block(sb, bh);

I think we need to keep retval = write_mmp_block() here. Otherwise we could
exit early in sb_rdonly() case and still have potential use-after-free.

>  
> -exit_thread:
> +wait_to_exit:
> +	set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> +	while (!kthread_should_stop())
> +		schedule();
> +	set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
>  	return retval;
>  }

This is more or less fine but if we get a spurious wakeup for whatever
reason (which sets task to TASK_RUNNING state) we would still be
potentially looping in that loop burning cpu...

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR