linux-kernel - Re: fs: NULL deref in atime_needs

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: <20160226220759.GH17997@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 22:07:59 +0000
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Cc:	Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>,
	Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>,
	Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
	Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: fs: NULL deref in atime_needs_update

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:25:21PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:21 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 04:39:27PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> >> Hrm...  OK, seeing that you still seem to trigger those within an hour or
> >> two (and *any* of remaining WARN_ON() are serious bugs - none of the
> >> "mitigation had been triggered" remained, sorry for not making it clear),
> >> let's try this.  Again, any WARN_ON triggered means that we'd caught something,
> >> whether it progresses into oops or not.
> >
> > Any news on that one?  I'm going to carve fixes for understood bugs out of
> > that one and put those into tonight push, but it would be nice to sort out
> > all remaining crap lurking in that area...
> >
> > Another question: what about the very first trace you'd posted, with apparent
> > GPF at 00000050?  Have you seen anything like that afterwards?
> 
> No, I did not have time to retest.
> 
> GPF at 00000050 was not mine, it was Mickaël's.

Ah, OK - his is basically a forced nd->stack[] underrun, with passing a
never-assigned nd->link_inode to atime_needs_update(), so we are just
passing a contents of uninitialized stack word there and while it ends
up possible to dereference, it's not an address of struct inode and the
first attempt to follow a pointer in what would've been a struct inode
at that address (accessing inode->i_sb->s_flags) did blow up with GPF at
offsetof(struct super_block, s_flags).

All right, so we basically have several understood ones with fixes plus
something unknown that leads to lookup_fast() returning 0 with NULL in
*inode in about an hour or two on your setup...