linux-kernel - Re: [3.3-rc7] sys_poll use after free (hibernate)

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]

Message-ID: <CAMOw1v4qa_AxJgc+qAsY6M=K--2JDvO-+CNj8OwKuE7piRViGw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 20 Mar 2012 03:08:08 -0300
From:	Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@...fusion.mobi>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [3.3-rc7] sys_poll use after free (hibernate)

On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 12:02:04PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> and that load is from
>>
>>     poll_wait(filp, &table->poll->wait, wait);
>>
>> where the testing of %rsi and %rcx are the "if (p && wait_address)"
>> check in poll_wait(), and %rsi is "table->poll" if I read it all
>> correctly.
>>
>> And the 6b6b6b6b6b6b6b6b pattern is obviously POISON_FREE, so
>> apparently 'table' has already been freed.
>>
>> I suspect the whole sysctl 'poll' code is seriously broken, since it
>> seems to depend on those ctl_table pointers being stable over the
>> whole open/close sequence, but if somebody unregisters the sysctl,
>> it's all gone. The ctl_table doesn't have any refcounting etc, and I
>> suspect that your hibernate sequence ends up unregistering some sysctl
>> (perhaps as part of a module unload?)

How could that happen if the only files that support poll  right now
on sysctl are kernel/hostname and kernel/domainname?

>
> Ewww...  The way it was supposed to work (prio to ->poll() madness) was
> that actual IO gets wrapped into grab_header()/sysctl_head_finish()
> pair.  proc_sys_poll() doesn't do it, so yes, that post-mortem is
> very likely to be correct.

Yes, it  seems like I forgot to call grab_header() there, sorry for
that. I'll prepare a patch and send you later today. I just wonder
what is happening to reach that code... :-/


Lucas De Marchi
--
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/