linux-kernel - [PATCH 3.16 002/157] xfrm: policy: Fix out-of-bound array accesses in __xfrm_policy

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: <lsq.1565469607.429195667@decadent.org.uk>
Date:   Sat, 10 Aug 2019 21:40:07 +0100
From:   Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
CC:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Denis Kirjanov <kda@...ux-powerpc.org>,
        "YueHaibing" <yuehaibing@...wei.com>,
        "Steffen Klassert" <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
        "Hulk Robot" <hulkci@...wei.com>,
        "Herbert Xu" <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Subject: [PATCH 3.16 002/157] xfrm: policy: Fix out-of-bound array
 accesses in __xfrm_policy_unlink

3.16.72-rc1 review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>

commit b805d78d300bcf2c83d6df7da0c818b0fee41427 upstream.

UBSAN report this:

UBSAN: Undefined behaviour in net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c:1289:24
index 6 is out of range for type 'unsigned int [6]'
CPU: 1 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/1 Not tainted 4.4.162-514.55.6.9.x86_64+ #13
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.10.2-1ubuntu1 04/01/2014
 0000000000000000 1466cf39b41b23c9 ffff8801f6b07a58 ffffffff81cb35f4
 0000000041b58ab3 ffffffff83230f9c ffffffff81cb34e0 ffff8801f6b07a80
 ffff8801f6b07a20 1466cf39b41b23c9 ffffffff851706e0 ffff8801f6b07ae8
Call Trace:
 <IRQ>  [<ffffffff81cb35f4>] __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:15 [inline]
 <IRQ>  [<ffffffff81cb35f4>] dump_stack+0x114/0x1a0 lib/dump_stack.c:51
 [<ffffffff81d94225>] ubsan_epilogue+0x12/0x8f lib/ubsan.c:164
 [<ffffffff81d954db>] __ubsan_handle_out_of_bounds+0x16e/0x1b2 lib/ubsan.c:382
 [<ffffffff82a25acd>] __xfrm_policy_unlink+0x3dd/0x5b0 net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c:1289
 [<ffffffff82a2e572>] xfrm_policy_delete+0x52/0xb0 net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c:1309
 [<ffffffff82a3319b>] xfrm_policy_timer+0x30b/0x590 net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c:243
 [<ffffffff813d3927>] call_timer_fn+0x237/0x990 kernel/time/timer.c:1144
 [<ffffffff813d8e7e>] __run_timers kernel/time/timer.c:1218 [inline]
 [<ffffffff813d8e7e>] run_timer_softirq+0x6ce/0xb80 kernel/time/timer.c:1401
 [<ffffffff8120d6f9>] __do_softirq+0x299/0xe10 kernel/softirq.c:273
 [<ffffffff8120e676>] invoke_softirq kernel/softirq.c:350 [inline]
 [<ffffffff8120e676>] irq_exit+0x216/0x2c0 kernel/softirq.c:391
 [<ffffffff82c5edab>] exiting_irq arch/x86/include/asm/apic.h:652 [inline]
 [<ffffffff82c5edab>] smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x8b/0xc0 arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c:926
 [<ffffffff82c5c985>] apic_timer_interrupt+0xa5/0xb0 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:735
 <EOI>  [<ffffffff81188096>] ? native_safe_halt+0x6/0x10 arch/x86/include/asm/irqflags.h:52
 [<ffffffff810834d7>] arch_safe_halt arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h:111 [inline]
 [<ffffffff810834d7>] default_idle+0x27/0x430 arch/x86/kernel/process.c:446
 [<ffffffff81085f05>] arch_cpu_idle+0x15/0x20 arch/x86/kernel/process.c:437
 [<ffffffff8132abc3>] default_idle_call+0x53/0x90 kernel/sched/idle.c:92
 [<ffffffff8132b32d>] cpuidle_idle_call kernel/sched/idle.c:156 [inline]
 [<ffffffff8132b32d>] cpu_idle_loop kernel/sched/idle.c:251 [inline]
 [<ffffffff8132b32d>] cpu_startup_entry+0x60d/0x9a0 kernel/sched/idle.c:299
 [<ffffffff8113e119>] start_secondary+0x3c9/0x560 arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c:245

The issue is triggered as this:

xfrm_add_policy
    -->verify_newpolicy_info  //check the index provided by user with XFRM_POLICY_MAX
			      //In my case, the index is 0x6E6BB6, so it pass the check.
    -->xfrm_policy_construct  //copy the user's policy and set xfrm_policy_timer
    -->xfrm_policy_insert
	--> __xfrm_policy_link //use the orgin dir, in my case is 2
	--> xfrm_gen_index   //generate policy index, there is 0x6E6BB6

then xfrm_policy_timer be fired

xfrm_policy_timer
   --> xfrm_policy_id2dir  //get dir from (policy index & 7), in my case is 6
   --> xfrm_policy_delete
      --> __xfrm_policy_unlink //access policy_count[dir], trigger out of range access

Add xfrm_policy_id2dir check in verify_newpolicy_info, make sure the computed dir is
valid, to fix the issue.

Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@...wei.com>
Fixes: e682adf021be ("xfrm: Try to honor policy index if it's supplied by user")
Signed-off-by: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>
Acked-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Signed-off-by: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
---
 net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c
+++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c
@@ -1255,7 +1255,7 @@ static int verify_newpolicy_info(struct
 	ret = verify_policy_dir(p->dir);
 	if (ret)
 		return ret;
-	if (p->index && ((p->index & XFRM_POLICY_MAX) != p->dir))
+	if (p->index && (xfrm_policy_id2dir(p->index) != p->dir))
 		return -EINVAL;

 	return 0;