linux-kernel - Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC v2 5/5] tpm2: expose resource manager via a device link /dev/tpms<n>

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]

Date:   Fri, 13 Jan 2017 12:02:36 -0800
From:   James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
Cc:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC v2 5/5] tpm2: expose resource manager
 via a device link /dev/tpms<n>

On Fri, 2017-01-13 at 12:47 -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 11:20:47AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-01-12 at 11:39 -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 07:46:08PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > 
> > > >  struct tpm_chip {
> > > > -	struct device dev;
> > > > -	struct cdev cdev;
> > > > +	struct device dev, devrm;
> > > 
> > > Hum.. devrm adds a new kref but doesn't do anything with the
> > > release
> > > function, so that is going to use after free, ie here:
> > > 
> > > > 	put_device(&chip->dev);
> > > > +	put_device(&chip->devrm);
> > > > 	return ERR_PTR(rc);
> > > 
> > > And other places.
> > > 
> > > One solution is to get_device(chip->dev) after
> > > device_initialize(dev->rm) and add a devrm->dev.release function
> > > to
> > > do put_device(chip->dev)
> > 
> > Actually, no, the devrm is a completely lifetime managed device as
> > part
> > of the chip structure.  once you've done a device_del on it, it can
> > be
> > kfreed because it's no longer visible to anything else.
> 
> No, that isn't enough. Anything else could have obtained a kref on
> devrm outside of the sphere the device_del manages.
> 
> For instance, the cdev does exactly that, via this:
> 
> >  	chip->cdev.kobj.parent = &chip->dev.kobj;
> > +	chip->cdevrm.kobj.parent = &chip->devrm.kobj;
> 
> In the worst case the kref the cdev grabs is not released until after
> tpm_chip_unregister() returns.

chip_unregister doesn't tear down either device.  It's the final
release of the chip->dev that does that.  chip->devrm is simply a
subordinate in that process, which is why it doesn't need to be
separately managed.  We have to be careful to call cdev_del() before
device_del on devrm, but we do that, so we're guaranteed no visible
references by the time the chip->dev release is called.

> Having a kref that doesn't work is just asking for trouble, please
> make it work properly.

Actually, as shown above, these krefs are managed ... However, they're
not actually what holds the tpm module in place.  The try_module_get on
open via the owner field does that.  So, by the time tpm_exit() is
called we know there are no devrm references simply because we manage
the cdevrm entity as well.

Now there is a related problem that the owner is actually the *wrong*
module: it holds the tpm module in place not the actual driver module,
so I can happily attach tcsd to the TPM device then rmmod tpm_tis,
which causes some interesting issues.  I can fix this, but it's not a
problem of the current patch.

James