linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] android: binder: Sanity check at binder ioctl

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <56A9BE66.80400@hisilicon.com>
Date:	Thu, 28 Jan 2016 15:08:22 +0800
From:	chenfeng <puck.chen@...ilicon.com>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
CC:	<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, <arve@...roid.com>,
	<riandrews@...roid.com>, <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <yudongbin@...ilicon.com>,
	<saberlily.xia@...ilicon.com>, <suzhuangluan@...ilicon.com>,
	<kong.kongxinwei@...ilicon.com>, <xuyiping@...ilicon.com>,
	<z.liuxinliang@...ilicon.com>, <weidong2@...ilicon.com>,
	<w.f@...wei.com>, <puck.chen@...mail.com>,
	<shimingxing@...ilicon.com>, <oliver.fu@...ilicon.com>,
	<albert.lubing@...ilicon.com>, <chenxiang9@...wei.com>,
	<liuzixing@...wei.com>, <haojian.zhuang@...aro.org>,
	<zhaojunmin@...wei.com>, <wangjing6@...wei.com>,
	<john.stultz@...aro.org>, <qijiwen@...ilicon.com>,
	<peter.panshilin@...ilicon.com>, <dan.zhao@...ilicon.com>,
	<linuxarm@...wei.com>, <dev@...ts.96boards.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] android: binder: Sanity check at binder ioctl

Hi,

On 2016/1/20 6:40, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jan 2016, Chen Feng wrote:
> 
>> When a process fork a child process, we should not allow the
>> child process use the binder which opened by parent process.
>>
>> But if the binder-object creater is a thread of one process who exit,
>> the other thread can also use this binder-object normally.
>> We can distinguish this by the member proc->tsk->mm.
>> If the thread exit the tsk->mm will be NULL.
>>
> 
> Why does exit_mm(), the point where tsk->mm == NULL, signify the point at 
> which the binder can now be used by other threads?

Yes,the other threads used this shared mm for communication. A lots of APPs
have this issue.

For example: system_server process use many libs,libstagefright, Libdrmframeworketc,
In these lib, binder global object exist like static sp<DeathNotifier> sDeathNotifier,
static sp<IDrmManagerService> sDrmManagerService;
When system_sever process fork failed, the new child process call exit, which will call
hook destruction function.
In destruction, the parent process *binder reference count will be wrong*. To protect
these exception, we need to add the code in binder.

For v2 patch, I agree with your opinion, some race condition exist in some special case.
I found that the task->mm already cached at binder_mm.
proc->vma_vm_mm = vma->vm_mm;
I will change the condition to  if (unlikely(current->mm != proc->tsk->mm)).
But in some scenes, the thread do communication before the mmap called.
So I add proc->vma_vm_mm = current->mm where the binder_open function.

Since the binder init process in libbinder, the fix won't produce side effect.
If these are accepted, I will send a new V3 version.


> 
>> proc->tsk->mm != current->mm && proc->tsk->mm
>>
>> So only allow the shared mm_struct to use the same binder-object and
>> check the existence of mm_struct.
>>
>> V2: Fix compile error for error commit
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chen Feng <puck.chen@...ilicon.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Wei  Dong <weidong2@...ilicon.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Junmin Zhao <zhaojunmin@...wei.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Zhuangluan Su <suzhuangluan@...ilicon.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/android/binder.c | 2 ++
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/android/binder.c b/drivers/android/binder.c
>> index a39e85f..279063c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/android/binder.c
>> +++ b/drivers/android/binder.c
>> @@ -2736,6 +2736,8 @@ static long binder_ioctl(struct file *filp, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
>>  
>>  	/*pr_info("binder_ioctl: %d:%d %x %lx\n",
>>  			proc->pid, current->pid, cmd, arg);*/
>> +	if (unlikely(proc->tsk->mm != current->mm && proc->tsk->mm))
>> +		return -EINVAL;
>>  
>>  	trace_binder_ioctl(cmd, arg);
>>  
> 
> I would imagine that you would want to do READ_ONCE(proc->tsk->mm) so you 
> are guaranteed to be testing the same value.
> 
> .
>