| 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: <20201101110258.GA2925745@kroah.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2020 12:02:58 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Anmol Karn <anmol.karan123@...il.com>
Cc: ralf@...ux-mips.org, davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
syzbot+a1c743815982d9496393@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
linux-hams@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH] net: rose: Fix Null pointer
dereference in rose_send_frame()
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 04:24:13PM +0530, Anmol Karn wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 05:50:51PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 07:40:12PM +0530, Anmol Karn wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 07:12:25AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 05:47:12AM +0530, Anmol Karn wrote:
> > > > > In rose_send_frame(), when comparing two ax.25 addresses, it assigns rose_call to
> > > > > either global ROSE callsign or default port, but when the former block triggers and
> > > > > rose_call is assigned by (ax25_address *)neigh->dev->dev_addr, a NULL pointer is
> > > > > dereferenced by 'neigh' when dereferencing 'dev'.
> > > > >
> > > > > - net/rose/rose_link.c
> > > > > This bug seems to get triggered in this line:
> > > > >
> > > > > rose_call = (ax25_address *)neigh->dev->dev_addr;
> > > > >
> > > > > Prevent it by checking NULL condition for neigh->dev before comparing addressed for
> > > > > rose_call initialization.
> > > > >
> > > > > Reported-by: syzbot+a1c743815982d9496393@...kaller.appspotmail.com
> > > > > Link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=9d2a7ca8c7f2e4b682c97578dfa3f236258300b3
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Anmol Karn <anmol.karan123@...il.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > I am bit sceptical about the error return code, please suggest if anything else is
> > > > > appropriate in place of '-ENODEV'.
> > > > >
> > > > > net/rose/rose_link.c | 3 +++
> > > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/net/rose/rose_link.c b/net/rose/rose_link.c
> > > > > index f6102e6f5161..92ea6a31d575 100644
> > > > > --- a/net/rose/rose_link.c
> > > > > +++ b/net/rose/rose_link.c
> > > > > @@ -97,6 +97,9 @@ static int rose_send_frame(struct sk_buff *skb, struct rose_neigh *neigh)
> > > > > ax25_address *rose_call;
> > > > > ax25_cb *ax25s;
> > > > >
> > > > > + if (!neigh->dev)
> > > > > + return -ENODEV;
> > > >
> > > > How can ->dev not be set at this point in time? Shouldn't that be
> > > > fixed, because it could change right after you check this, right?
> > > >
> > > > thanks,
> > > >
> > > > greg k-h
> > >
> > > Hello Sir,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the review,
> > > After following the call trace i thought, if neigh->dev is NULL it should
> > > be checked, but I will figure out what is going on with the crash reproducer,
> > > and I think rose_loopback_timer() is the place where problem started.
> > >
> > > Also, I have created a diff for checking neigh->dev before assigning ROSE callsign
> > > , please give your suggestions on this.
> > >
> > >
> > > diff --git a/net/rose/rose_link.c b/net/rose/rose_link.c
> > > index f6102e6f5161..2ddd5e559442 100644
> > > --- a/net/rose/rose_link.c
> > > +++ b/net/rose/rose_link.c
> > > @@ -97,10 +97,14 @@ static int rose_send_frame(struct sk_buff *skb, struct rose_neigh *neigh)
> > > ax25_address *rose_call;
> > > ax25_cb *ax25s;
> > >
> > > - if (ax25cmp(&rose_callsign, &null_ax25_address) == 0)
> > > - rose_call = (ax25_address *)neigh->dev->dev_addr;
> > > - else
> > > - rose_call = &rose_callsign;
> > > + if (neigh->dev) {
> > > + if (ax25cmp(&rose_callsign, &null_ax25_address) == 0)
> > > + rose_call = (ax25_address *)neigh->dev->dev_addr;
> > > + else
> > > + rose_call = &rose_callsign;
> > > + } else {
> > > + return -ENODEV;
> > > + }
> >
> > The point I am trying to make is that if someone else is setting ->dev
> > to NULL in some other thread/context/whatever, while this is running,
> > checking for it like this will not work.
> >
> > What is the lifetime rules of that pointer? Who initializes it, and who
> > sets it to NULL. Figure that out first please to determine how to check
> > for this properly.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > greg k-h
>
> Hello All,
>
> I investigated further on this,
>
> Here is some things i noticed:
>
> When I followed the call trace,
>
> [ 84.241331][ C3] Call Trace:
> [ 84.241331][ C3] rose_transmit_clear_request ($SOURCE/net/rose/rose_link.c:255)
> [ 84.241331][ C3] ? lockdep_hardirqs_on ($SOURCE/kernel/locking/lockdep.c:4161)
> [ 84.241331][ C3] rose_rx_call_request ($SOURCE/net/rose/af_rose.c:999)
> [ 84.241331][ C3] ? rose_release ($SOURCE/net/rose/af_rose.c:970)
> [ 84.241331][ C3] rose_loopback_timer ($SOURCE/net/rose/rose_loopback.c:100)
> [ 84.241331][ C3] ? rose_transmit_link ($SOURCE/net/rose/rose_loopback.c:60)
>
> in the rose_send_frame() it dereferenced `neigh->dev` when called from
> rose_transmit_clear_request(), and the first occurance of the `neigh`
> is in rose_loopback_timer() as `rose_loopback_neigh`, and it is initialized
> in rose_add_loopback_neighh() as NULL.
>
> - net/rose/rose_route.c:381
>
> void rose_add_loopback_neigh(void)
> {
> struct rose_neigh *sn;
>
> rose_loopback_neigh = kmalloc(sizeof(struct rose_neigh), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!rose_loopback_neigh)
> return;
> sn = rose_loopback_neigh;
>
> sn->callsign = null_ax25_address;
> sn->digipeat = NULL;
> sn->ax25 = NULL;
> sn->dev = NULL;
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> i.e when `rose_loopback_neigh` used in rose_loopback_timer() its `->dev` was
> still NULL and rose_loopback_timer() was calling rose_rx_call_request()
> without checking for NULL.
>
>
> I have created the following patch to check for NULL pointer.
>
> diff --git a/net/rose/rose_loopback.c b/net/rose/rose_loopback.c
> index 7b094275ea8b..cd7774cb1d07 100644
> --- a/net/rose/rose_loopback.c
> +++ b/net/rose/rose_loopback.c
> @@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ static void rose_loopback_timer(struct timer_list *unused)
> }
>
> if (frametype == ROSE_CALL_REQUEST) {
> - if ((dev = rose_dev_get(dest)) != NULL) {
> + if (rose_loopback_neigh->dev && (dev = rose_dev_get(dest)) != NULL) {
> if (rose_rx_call_request(skb, dev, rose_loopback_neigh, lci_o) == 0)
> kfree_skb(skb);
> } else {
>
>
>
> Please, review it and give me suggestions whether i am going right or not.
That seems better, does it solve the syzbot test?
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists