linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] nvmet: Fix use-after-free bug when a port is removed

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 4 Jul 2019 15:01:49 -0600
From:   Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
To:     Max Gurtovoy <maxg@...lanox.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>
Cc:     Stephen Bates <sbates@...thlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] nvmet: Fix use-after-free bug when a port is
 removed



On 2019-07-04 3:00 p.m., Max Gurtovoy wrote:
> Hi Logan,
> 
> On 7/4/2019 2:03 AM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>> When a port is removed through configfs, any connected controllers
>> are still active and can still send commands. This causes a
>> use-after-free bug which is detected by KASAN for any admin command
>> that dereferences req->port (like in nvmet_execute_identify_ctrl).
>>
>> To fix this, disconnect all active controllers when a subsystem is
>> removed from a port. This ensures there are no active controllers
>> when the port is eventually removed.
> 
> so now we are enforcing controller existence with port configfs, right ?
> sounds reasonable.

Correct.

> Did you run your patches with other transport (RDMA/TCP/FC) ?

Just RDMA and loop. I suppose I could test with TCP but I don't have FC
hardware.

Logan