| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20200901152617.GB583718@cisco>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 09:26:17 -0600
From: Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.pizza>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, luto@...capital.net,
syzbot <syzbot+3ad9614a12f80994c32e@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, wad@...omium.org
Subject: Re: memory leak in do_seccomp
On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 08:08:13AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 07:14:59PM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 06:09:15PM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 04:25:35PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 08:50:15PM -0700, syzbot wrote:
> > > > > syzbot has found a reproducer for the following issue on:
> > > > >
> > > > > HEAD commit: dcc5c6f0 Merge tag 'x86-urgent-2020-08-30' of git://git.ke..
> > > > > git tree: upstream
> > > > > console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=10b297d5900000
> > > > > kernel config: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=903b9fecc3c6d231
> > > > > dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=3ad9614a12f80994c32e
> > > > > compiler: gcc (GCC) 10.1.0-syz 20200507
> > > > > syz repro: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.syz?x=14649561900000
> > > > > C reproducer: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.c?x=118aacc1900000
> > > > >
> > > > > IMPORTANT: if you fix the issue, please add the following tag to the commit:
> > > > > Reported-by: syzbot+3ad9614a12f80994c32e@...kaller.appspotmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > executing program
> > > > > executing program
> > > > > executing program
> > > > > executing program
> > > > > executing program
> > > > > BUG: memory leak
> > > > > unreferenced object 0xffff88811ba93600 (size 64):
> > > > > comm "syz-executor680", pid 6503, jiffies 4294951104 (age 21.940s)
> > > > > hex dump (first 32 bytes):
> > > > > 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 08 36 a9 1b 81 88 ff ff .........6......
> > > > > 08 36 a9 1b 81 88 ff ff 11 ce 98 89 3a d5 b4 8f .6..........:...
> > > > > backtrace:
> > > > > [<00000000896418b0>] kmalloc include/linux/slab.h:554 [inline]
> > > > > [<00000000896418b0>] kzalloc include/linux/slab.h:666 [inline]
> > > > > [<00000000896418b0>] init_listener kernel/seccomp.c:1473 [inline]
> > > > > [<00000000896418b0>] seccomp_set_mode_filter kernel/seccomp.c:1546 [inline]
> > > > > [<00000000896418b0>] do_seccomp+0x8ce/0xd40 kernel/seccomp.c:1649
> > > > > [<000000002b04976c>] do_syscall_64+0x2d/0x70 arch/x86/entry/common.c:46
> > > > > [<00000000322b4126>] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
> > > >
> > > > I haven't narrowed this down yet (and it *might* be a false positive),
> > > > but it looks like this is filter->notif. The only way that's possible is
> > > > if seccomp_notify_release() was never called *and* seccomp_filter_free()
> > > > got called... which would imply a reference counting problem. The way
> > > > there doesn't jump out at me yet, but I haven't yet decoded the C
> > > > reproducer into the actual seccomp arguments, etc.
> > >
> > > Looks like it's just a bunch of threads in the same thread group
> > > trying to install a filter with TSYNC and NEW_LISTENER turned on. Does
> > > the patch below look reasonable?
> > >
> > > I didn't send it separately since I'm in the process of switching my
> > > e-mail address to tycho@...ho.pizza; let this e-mail serve as proof
> > > that that e-mail really is me too :). I can send it the normal way if
> > > it looks good.
> > >
> > >
> > > From d497e787e8e1b3e8b9230fdc4c9802616709c920 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > From: Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.pizza>
> > > Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 17:55:07 -0600
> > > Subject: [PATCH] seccomp: don't leak memory when filter install races
> > >
> > > In seccomp_set_mode_filter() with TSYNC | NEW_LISTENER, we first initialize
> > > the listener fd, then check to see if we can actually use it later in
> > > seccomp_may_assign_mode(), which can fail if anyone else in our thread
> > > group has installed a filter and caused some divergence. If we can't, we
> > > partially clean up the newly allocated file: we put the fd, put the file,
> > > but don't actually clean up the *memory* that was allocated at
> > > filter->notif. Let's clean that up too.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 51891498f2da ("seccomp: allow TSYNC and USER_NOTIF together")
> > > Reported-by: syzbot+3ad9614a12f80994c32e@...kaller.appspotmail.com
> > > Signed-off-by: Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.pizza>
> > > ---
> > > kernel/seccomp.c | 2 ++
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/seccomp.c b/kernel/seccomp.c
> > > index 3ee59ce0a323..21a76127833f 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/seccomp.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/seccomp.c
> > > @@ -1581,6 +1581,8 @@ static long seccomp_set_mode_filter(unsigned int flags,
> > > listener_f->private_data = NULL;
> > > fput(listener_f);
> > > put_unused_fd(listener);
> > > + kfree(filter->notif);
> > > + filter->notif = NULL;
> >
> > Oof, actually this isn't quite right. It should be s/filter/prepared/g.
> > I can fix that and send out a real patch that's actually tested at
> > some point tomorrow.
>
> Ah! Yes, nice catch. I was staring at the wrong failure path. :)
>
> I'm thinking the free/NULL pattern, since it's repeated in a few places,
> should likely be a short helper. I'll stare at this some more...
I think (?) it's just two, one here and one in
seccomp_notify_release() but agreed. Maybe something like (untested):
diff --git a/kernel/seccomp.c b/kernel/seccomp.c
index 3b593b4caaa5..bb0dd9ae699a 100644
--- a/kernel/seccomp.c
+++ b/kernel/seccomp.c
@@ -1109,13 +1109,12 @@ static long seccomp_set_mode_strict(void)
}
#ifdef CONFIG_SECCOMP_FILTER
-static int seccomp_notify_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
+static void seccomp_notify_detach(struct seccomp_filter *filter)
{
- struct seccomp_filter *filter = file->private_data;
struct seccomp_knotif *knotif;
if (!filter)
- return 0;
+ return;
mutex_lock(&filter->notify_lock);
@@ -1142,6 +1141,13 @@ static int seccomp_notify_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
kfree(filter->notif);
filter->notif = NULL;
mutex_unlock(&filter->notify_lock);
+}
+
+static int seccomp_notify_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
+{
+ struct seccomp_filter *filter = file->private_data;
+
+ seccomp_notify_detach(filter);
__put_seccomp_filter(filter);
return 0;
}
@@ -1581,8 +1587,7 @@ static long seccomp_set_mode_filter(unsigned int flags,
listener_f->private_data = NULL;
fput(listener_f);
put_unused_fd(listener);
- kfree(prepared->notif);
- filter->notif = NULL;
+ seccomp_notify_detach(prepared);
} else {
fd_install(listener, listener_f);
ret = listener;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists