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  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]
Date:   Thu, 26 Nov 2020 09:27:41 +0800
From:   Qinglang Miao <miaoqinglang@...wei.com>
To:     Benjamin Block <bblock@...ux.ibm.com>
CC:     Steffen Maier <maier@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: zfcp: fix use-after-free in zfcp_unit_remove



在 2020/11/26 1:06, Benjamin Block 写道:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 03:48:54PM +0800, Qinglang Miao wrote:
>> kfree(port) is called in put_device(&port->dev) so that following
>> use would cause use-after-free bug.
>>
>> The former put_device is redundant for device_unregister contains
>> put_device already. So just remove it to fix this.
>>
>> Fixes: 86bdf218a717 ("[SCSI] zfcp: cleanup unit sysfs attribute usage")
>> Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@...wei.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Qinglang Miao <miaoqinglang@...wei.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_unit.c | 2 --
>>   1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_unit.c b/drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_unit.c
>> index e67bf7388..664b77853 100644
>> --- a/drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_unit.c
>> +++ b/drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_unit.c
>> @@ -255,8 +255,6 @@ int zfcp_unit_remove(struct zfcp_port *port, u64 fcp_lun)
>>   		scsi_device_put(sdev);
>>   	}
>>   
>> -	put_device(&unit->dev);
>> -
>>   	device_unregister(&unit->dev);
>>  >>   	return 0;
> 
> Same as in the other mail for `zfcp_sysfs_port_remove_store()`. We
> explicitly get a new ref in `_zfcp_unit_find()`, so we also need to put
> that away again.
>
Sorry, Benjamin, I don't think so, because device_unregister calls 
put_device inside.

It seem's that another put_device before or after device_unregister is 
useless and even might cause an use-after-free.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists