linux-kernel - [PATCH] fix SMP ordering hole in fcntl

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <48392BD0.2090206@prepere.com>
Date:	Sun, 25 May 2008 11:05:20 +0200
From:	Miloslav Semler <majkls@...pere.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] fix SMP ordering hole in fcntl_setlk() (CVE-2008-1669)

backport of:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-2.6.25.y.git;a=commitdiff;h=c493a1dd8b3a93b57208319a77a8238f76dabca2
fcntl_setlk()/close() race prevention has a subtle hole - we need to
 make sure that if we *do* have an fcntl/close race on SMP box, the
 access to descriptor table and inode->i_flock won't get reordered.

 As it is, we get STORE inode->i_flock, LOAD descriptor table entry vs.
 STORE descriptor table entry, LOAD inode->i_flock with not a single
 lock in common on both sides.  We do have BKL around the first STORE,
 but check in locks_remove_posix() is outside of BKL and for a good
 reason - we don't want BKL on common path of close(2).

 Solution is to hold ->file_lock around fcheck() in there; that orders
 us wrt removal from descriptor table that preceded locks_remove_posix()
 on close path and we either come first (in which case eviction will be
 handled by the close side) or we'll see the effect of close and do
 eviction ourselves.  Note that even though it's read-only access,
 we do need ->file_lock here - rcu_read_lock() won't be enough to
 order the things.

Signed-off-by: Miloslav Semler
---
diff -uprN linux-2.6.16.60/fs/locks.c linux-2.6.16.60-new/fs/locks.c
--- linux-2.6.16.60/fs/locks.c  2008-01-27 17:58:41.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.16.60-new/fs/locks.c      2008-05-10 17:41:19.000000000 +0200
@@ -1615,6 +1615,7 @@ int fcntl_setlk(unsigned int fd, struct
        struct file_lock *file_lock = locks_alloc_lock();
        struct flock flock;
        struct inode *inode;
+       struct file *f;
        int error;

        if (file_lock == NULL)
@@ -1689,7 +1690,15 @@ again:
         * Attempt to detect a close/fcntl race and recover by
         * releasing the lock that was just acquired.
         */
-       if (!error && fcheck(fd) != filp && flock.l_type != F_UNLCK) {
+       /*
+        * we need that spin_lock here - it prevents reordering between
+        * update of inode->i_flock and check for it done in close().
+        * rcu_read_lock() wouldn't do.
+        */
+       spin_lock(&current->files->file_lock);
+       f = fcheck(fd);
+       spin_unlock(&current->files->file_lock);
+       if (!error && f != filp && flock.l_type != F_UNLCK) {
                flock.l_type = F_UNLCK;
                goto again;
        }
@@ -1758,6 +1767,7 @@ int fcntl_setlk64(unsigned int fd, struc
        struct file_lock *file_lock = locks_alloc_lock();
        struct flock64 flock;
        struct inode *inode;
+       struct file *f;
        int error;

        if (file_lock == NULL)
@@ -1832,7 +1842,10 @@ again:
         * Attempt to detect a close/fcntl race and recover by
         * releasing the lock that was just acquired.
         */
-       if (!error && fcheck(fd) != filp && flock.l_type != F_UNLCK) {
+       spin_lock(&current->files->file_lock);
+       f = fcheck(fd);
+       spin_unlock(&current->files->file_lock);
+       if (!error && f != filp && flock.l_type != F_UNLCK) {
                flock.l_type = F_UNLCK;
                goto again;
        }

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/