[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <586C5004.5030909@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 19:29:40 -0600
From: Mike Christie <mchristi@...hat.com>
To: lixiubo@...s.chinamobile.com, bart.vanassche@...disk.com
Cc: varun@...lsio.com, agrover@...hat.com, bgly@...ibm.com,
target-devel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, namei.unix@...il.com,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Jianfei Hu <hujianfei@...s.chinamobile.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] target/user: Fix use-after-free cmd->se_cmd if the cmd is
expired
On 01/03/2017 02:46 AM, lixiubo@...s.chinamobile.com wrote:
> From: Xiubo Li <lixiubo@...s.chinamobile.com>
>
> This is another use-after-free bug, the crash Call Trace is like:
> [ 368.909498] RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff81326766>] [<ffffffff81326766>]
> memcpy+0x16/0x110
> ......
> [ 368.909547] Call Trace:
> [ 368.909550] [<ffffffffa07717a9>] ?gather_data_area+0x109/0x180
> [ 368.909552] [<ffffffffa077227f>] tcmu_handle_completions+0x2ff/0x450
> [ 368.909554] [<ffffffffa07723e5>] tcmu_irqcontrol+0x15/0x20
> [ 368.909555] [<ffffffffa06f07eb>] uio_write+0x7b/0xc0
> [ 368.909558] [<ffffffff811fe12d>] vfs_write+0xbd/0x1e0
> [ 368.909559] [<ffffffff811fec4f>] SyS_write+0x7f/0xe0
> [ 368.909562] [<ffffffff816964c9>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
>
> Don't free se_cmd of the expired cmds in tcmu_check_expired_cmd(),
> it will be dereferenced by tcmu_handle_completions()--->
> tcmu_handle_completion(), after userspace ever resumes processing.
>
> It will be freed by tcmu_handle_completion() if userspace ever recovers,
> or tcmu_free_device if not.
>
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Xiubo Li <lixiubo@...s.chinamobile.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jianfei Hu <hujianfei@...s.chinamobile.com>
> ---
> drivers/target/target_core_user.c | 1 -
> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/target/target_core_user.c b/drivers/target/target_core_user.c
> index 2e33100..6396581 100644
> --- a/drivers/target/target_core_user.c
> +++ b/drivers/target/target_core_user.c
> @@ -684,7 +684,6 @@ static int tcmu_check_expired_cmd(int id, void *p, void *data)
>
> set_bit(TCMU_CMD_BIT_EXPIRED, &cmd->flags);
> target_complete_cmd(cmd->se_cmd, SAM_STAT_CHECK_CONDITION);
> - cmd->se_cmd = NULL;
>
How did tcmu_handle_completion get to a point it was accessing the
se_cmd if the TCMU_CMD_BIT_EXPIRED bit was set? Were memory accesses out
of order? CPU1 set the TCMU_CMD_BIT_EXPIRED bit then cleared
cmd->se_cmd, but CPU2 copied cmd->se_cmd to se_cmd and saw it was NULL
but did not yet see the TCMU_CMD_BIT_EXPIRED bit set?
It looks like, if you do the above patch, the above function will call
target_complete_cmd and tcmu_handle_completion will call it again, so we
will have a double free issue.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists