linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ipc/shm: fix use-after-free of shm file via remap_file

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: <20180410191413.GA214391@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 10 Apr 2018 12:14:13 -0700
From:   Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>
To:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc:     Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>,
        "Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipc/shm: fix use-after-free of shm file via
 remap_file_pages()

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 10:58:22AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 01:36:35PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 01:12:32PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > > On Mon, 09 Apr 2018, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > > 
> > > > It's necessary because if we don't hold a reference to sfd->file, then it can be
> > > > a stale pointer when we compare it in __shm_open().  In particular, if the new
> > > > struct file happened to be allocated at the same address as the old one, then
> > > > 'sfd->file == shp->shm_file' so the mmap would be allowed.  But, it will be a
> > > > different shm segment than was intended.  The caller may not even have
> > > > permissions to map it normally, yet it would be done anyway.
> > > > 
> > > > In the end it's just broken to have a pointer to something that can be freed out
> > > > from under you...
> > > 
> > > So this is actually handled by shm_nattch, serialized by the ipc perm->lock.
> > > shm_destroy() is called when 0, which in turn does the fput(shm_file). Note
> > > that shm_file is given a count of 1 when a new segment is created (deep in
> > > get_empty_filp()). So I don't think the pointer is going anywhere, or am I missing
> > > something?
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Davidlohr
> > 
> > In the remap_file_pages() case, a reference is taken to the ->vm_file, then the
> > segment is unmapped.  If that brings ->shm_nattch to 0, then the underlying shm
> > segment and ID can be removed, which (currently) causes the real shm file to be
> > freed.  But, the outer file still exists and will have ->mmap() called on it.
> > That's why the outer file needs to hold a reference to the real shm file.
> 
> Okay, fair enough. Logic in SysV IPC implementation is often hard to follow.
> Could you include the description in the commit message?
> 
> And feel free to use my
> 
> Acked-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
> 

I'll send v2 to update the commit message and add a comment.

Thanks,

Eric