linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] IB/sa: Resolving use-after-free in ib_nl_send

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200526003110.GJ744@ziepe.ca>
Date:   Mon, 25 May 2020 21:31:10 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To:     Divya Indi <divya.indi@...cle.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
        Kaike Wan <kaike.wan@...el.com>,
        Gerd Rausch <gerd.rausch@...cle.com>,
        Håkon Bugge <haakon.bugge@...cle.com>,
        Srinivas Eeda <srinivas.eeda@...cle.com>,
        Rama Nichanamatlu <rama.nichanamatlu@...cle.com>,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IB/sa: Resolving use-after-free in ib_nl_send_msg.

On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 08:11:24AM -0700, Divya Indi wrote:
>  static void ib_nl_set_path_rec_attrs(struct sk_buff *skb,
>  				     struct ib_sa_query *query)
>  {
> @@ -889,6 +904,15 @@ static int ib_nl_make_request(struct ib_sa_query *query, gfp_t gfp_mask)
>  		spin_lock_irqsave(&ib_nl_request_lock, flags);
>  		list_del(&query->list);
>  		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ib_nl_request_lock, flags);
> +	} else {
> +		set_bit(IB_SA_NL_QUERY_SENT, (unsigned long *)&query->flags);
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * If response is received before this flag was set
> +		 * someone is waiting to process the response and release the
> +		 * query.
> +		 */
> +		wake_up(&wait_queue);
>  	}

As far as I can see the issue here is that the request is put into the
ib_nl_request_list before it is really ready to be in that list, eg
ib_nl_send_msg() has actually completed and ownership of the memory
has been transfered.

It appears to me the reason for this is simply because a spinlock is
used for the ib_nl_request_lock and it cannot be held across
ib_nl_send_msg().

Convert that lock to a mutex and move the list_add to after the
success of ib_nl_send_msg() and this bug should be fixed without
adding jaunty atomics or a wait queue.

This is a 'racy error unwind' bug class...

Jason