linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] ext4: fix use-after-free in ext4_xattr_set

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 PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

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

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

Date:   Tue, 14 Jun 2022 18:01:46 +0800
From:   Baokun Li <libaokun1@...wei.com>
To:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
CC:     <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>, <tytso@....edu>,
        <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>, <ritesh.list@...il.com>,
        <lczerner@...hat.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <yi.zhang@...wei.com>, <yebin10@...wei.com>, <yukuai3@...wei.com>,
        Hulk Robot <hulkci@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: fix use-after-free in ext4_xattr_set_entry

在 2022/6/14 17:54, Jan Kara 写道:
> On Thu 02-06-22 19:46:51, Baokun Li wrote:
>> Hulk Robot reported a issue:
>> ==================================================================
>> BUG: KASAN: use-after-free in ext4_xattr_set_entry+0x18ab/0x3500
>> Write of size 4105 at addr ffff8881675ef5f4 by task syz-executor.0/7092
>>
>> CPU: 1 PID: 7092 Comm: syz-executor.0 Not tainted 4.19.90-dirty #17
>> Call Trace:
>> [...]
>>   memcpy+0x34/0x50 mm/kasan/kasan.c:303
>>   ext4_xattr_set_entry+0x18ab/0x3500 fs/ext4/xattr.c:1747
>>   ext4_xattr_ibody_inline_set+0x86/0x2a0 fs/ext4/xattr.c:2205
>>   ext4_xattr_set_handle+0x940/0x1300 fs/ext4/xattr.c:2386
>>   ext4_xattr_set+0x1da/0x300 fs/ext4/xattr.c:2498
>>   __vfs_setxattr+0x112/0x170 fs/xattr.c:149
>>   __vfs_setxattr_noperm+0x11b/0x2a0 fs/xattr.c:180
>>   __vfs_setxattr_locked+0x17b/0x250 fs/xattr.c:238
>>   vfs_setxattr+0xed/0x270 fs/xattr.c:255
>>   setxattr+0x235/0x330 fs/xattr.c:520
>>   path_setxattr+0x176/0x190 fs/xattr.c:539
>>   __do_sys_lsetxattr fs/xattr.c:561 [inline]
>>   __se_sys_lsetxattr fs/xattr.c:557 [inline]
>>   __x64_sys_lsetxattr+0xc2/0x160 fs/xattr.c:557
>>   do_syscall_64+0xdf/0x530 arch/x86/entry/common.c:298
>>   entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
>> RIP: 0033:0x459fe9
>> RSP: 002b:00007fa5e54b4c08 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 00000000000000bd
>> RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 000000000051bf60 RCX: 0000000000459fe9
>> RDX: 00000000200003c0 RSI: 0000000020000180 RDI: 0000000020000140
>> RBP: 000000000051bf60 R08: 0000000000000001 R09: 0000000000000000
>> R10: 0000000000001009 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 0000000000000000
>> R13: 00007ffc73c93fc0 R14: 000000000051bf60 R15: 00007fa5e54b4d80
>> [...]
>> ==================================================================
>>
>> Above issue may happen as follows:
>> -------------------------------------
>> ext4_xattr_set
>>    ext4_xattr_set_handle
>>      ext4_xattr_ibody_find
>>        >> s->end < s->base
>>        >> no EXT4_STATE_XATTR
>>        >> xattr_check_inode is not executed
>>      ext4_xattr_ibody_set
>>        ext4_xattr_set_entry
>>         >> size_t min_offs = s->end - s->base
>>         >> UAF in memcpy
>>
>> we can easily reproduce this problem with the following commands:
>>      mkfs.ext4 -F /dev/sda
>>      mount -o debug_want_extra_isize=128 /dev/sda /mnt
>>      touch /mnt/file
>>      setfattr -n user.cat -v `seq -s z 4096|tr -d '[:digit:]'` /mnt/file
>>
>> In ext4_xattr_ibody_find, we have the following assignment logic:
>>    header = IHDR(inode, raw_inode)
>>           = raw_inode + EXT4_GOOD_OLD_INODE_SIZE + i_extra_isize
>>    is->s.base = IFIRST(header)
>>               = header + sizeof(struct ext4_xattr_ibody_header)
>>    is->s.end = raw_inode + s_inode_size
>>
>> Obviously, when the inode does not have EXT4_status_XATTR and its
>> i_extra_isize is large, is->s.end may be larger than is->s.base.
>> In this case, the above issue may be triggered.
>>
>>     EXT4_GOOD_OLD_INODE_SIZE  extra_isize  header   entry   pad   data
>> |---------------------------|------------|------|---------|---|--------|
>>
>> As shown above, when adding an xattr to an inode, we must ensure that the
>> inode_size is not less than EXT4_GOOD_OLD_INODE_SIZE + extra_isize + pad.
>>
>> Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@...wei.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Baokun Li <libaokun1@...wei.com>
> Thanks for the fix! It looks good to me. Just one small nit:
>
>> +#define INODE_HAVE_XATTR_SPACE(inode)					\
>> +	((EXT4_I(inode)->i_extra_isize != 0) &&				\
>> +	 (EXT4_GOOD_OLD_INODE_SIZE + EXT4_I(inode)->i_extra_isize +	\
>> +	  sizeof(struct ext4_xattr_ibody_header) + EXT4_XATTR_PAD <=	\
>> +	  EXT4_INODE_SIZE((inode)->i_sb)))
>> +
> We should have ext4 in the name of the above macro so something like:
>
> EXT4_INODE_HAS_XATTR_SPACE()
>
> With that fixed feel free to add:
>
> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
>
> 								Honza

Thank you for your review!

I will send a patch V2 with the changes suggested by you. Thanks again!

-- 
With Best Regards,
Baokun Li

.