linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] unix: avoid use-after-free in ep_remove_wait

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: <87bnazt4lu.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 Nov 2015 19:11:41 +0000
From:	Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@...ileactivedefense.com>
To:	Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>
Cc:	Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@...ileactivedefense.com>,
	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
	syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>,
	Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	"linux-fsdevel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, salyzyn@...roid.com,
	sds@...ho.nsa.gov, ying.xue@...driver.com,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
	Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
	Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
	Julien Tinnes <jln@...gle.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
	Mathias Krause <minipli@...glemail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] unix: avoid use-after-free in ep_remove_wait_queue

Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com> writes:
>> +
>> +/* Needs sk unix state lock. After recv_ready indicated not ready,
>> + * establish peer_wait connection if still needed.
>> + */
>> +static int unix_dgram_peer_wake_me(struct sock *sk, struct sock *other)
>> +{
>> +	int connected;
>> +
>> +	connected = unix_dgram_peer_wake_connect(sk, other);
>> +
>> +	if (unix_recvq_full(other))
>> +		return 1;
>> +
>> +	if (connected)
>> +		unix_dgram_peer_wake_disconnect(sk, other);
>> +
>> +	return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>
> So the comment above this function says 'needs unix state lock', however
> the usage in unix_dgram_sendmsg() has the 'other' lock, while the usage
> in unix_dgram_poll() has the 'sk' lock. So this looks racy.

That's one thing which is broken with this patch. Judging from a 'quick'
look at the _dgram_sendmsg code, the unix_state_lock(other) will need to
be turned into a unix_state_double_lock(sk, other) and the remaining
code changed accordingly (since all of the checks must be done without
unlocking other). 

There's also something else seriously wrong with the present patch: Some
code in unix_dgram_connect presently (with this change) looks like this:

        /*
         * If it was connected, reconnect.
         */
        if (unix_peer(sk)) {
                struct sock *old_peer = unix_peer(sk);
                unix_peer(sk) = other;

                if (unix_dgram_peer_wake_disconnect(sk, other))
                        wake_up_interruptible_poll(sk_sleep(sk),
                                                   POLLOUT |
                                                   POLLWRNORM |
                                                   POLLWRBAND);

                unix_state_double_unlock(sk, other);

                if (other != old_peer)
                        unix_dgram_disconnected(sk, old_peer);
                sock_put(old_peer);

and trying to disconnect from a peer the socket is just being
connected to is - of course - "flowering tomfoolery" (literal
translation of the German "bluehender Bloedsinn") --- it needs to
disconnect from old_peer instead.

I'll address the suggestion and send an updated patch "later today" (may
become "early tomorrow"). I have some code addressing both issues but
that's part of a release of 'our' kernel fork, ie, 3.2.54-based I'll
need to do 'soon'.
--
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/