linux-kernel - Re: Files leak from nfsd in 4.7.1-rc1 (and more?)

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: <A0A3CAA8-969A-4E12-9532-41DE9D257C74@linuxhacker.ru>
Date:	Wed, 8 Jun 2016 12:10:40 -0400
From:	Oleg Drokin <green@...uxhacker.ru>
To:	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>
Cc:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
	"<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Mailing List" 
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Files leak from nfsd in 4.7.1-rc1 (and more?)


On Jun 8, 2016, at 6:58 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:

> A simple way to confirm that might be to convert all of the read locks
> on the st_rwsem to write locks. That will serialize all of the open
> operations and should prevent that particular race from occurring.
> 
> If that works, we'd probably want to fix it in a less heavy-handed way,
> but I'd have to think about how best to do that.

So I looked at the call sites for nfs4_get_vfs_file(), how about something like this:

after we grab the fp->fi_lock, we can do test_access(open->op_share_access, stp);

If that returns true - just drop the spinlock and return EAGAIN.

The callsite in nfs4_upgrade_open() would handle that by retesting the access map
again and either coming back in or more likely reusing the now updated stateid
(synchronised by the fi_lock again).
We probably need to convert the whole access map testing there to be under
fi_lock.
Something like:
nfs4_upgrade_open(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nfs4_file *fp, struct svc_fh *cur_fh, struct nfs4_ol_stateid *stp, struct nfsd4_open *open)
{
        __be32 status;
        unsigned char old_deny_bmap = stp->st_deny_bmap;

again:
+        spin_lock(&fp->fi_lock);
        if (!test_access(open->op_share_access, stp)) {
+		spin_unlock(&fp->fi_lock);
+               status = nfs4_get_vfs_file(rqstp, fp, cur_fh, stp, open);
+		if (status == -EAGAIN)
+			goto again;
+		return status;
+	}

        /* test and set deny mode */
-        spin_lock(&fp->fi_lock);
        status = nfs4_file_check_deny(fp, open->op_share_deny);


The call in nfsd4_process_open2() I think cannot hit this condition, right?
probably can add a WARN_ON there? BUG_ON? more sensible approach?

Alternatively we can probably always call nfs4_get_vfs_file() under this spinlock,
just have it drop that for the open and then reobtain (already done), not as transparent I guess.

Or the fi_lock might be converted to say a mutex, so we can sleep with it held and
then we can hold it across whole invocation of nfs4_get_vfs_file() and access testing and stuff.