linux-kernel - [PATCH] drm: Fix use-after-free read in drm

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue,  8 Jun 2021 19:04:36 +0800
From:   Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi <desmondcheongzx@...il.com>
To:     maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com, mripard@...nel.org,
        tzimmermann@...e.de, airlied@...ux.ie, daniel@...ll.ch
Cc:     Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi <desmondcheongzx@...il.com>,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        skhan@...uxfoundation.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        syzbot+c3a706cec1ea99e1c693@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: [PATCH] drm: Fix use-after-free read in drm_getunique()

There is a time-of-check-to-time-of-use error in drm_getunique() due
to retrieving file_priv->master prior to locking the device's master
mutex.

An example can be seen in the crash report of the use-after-free error
found by Syzbot:
https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=148d2f1dfac64af52ffd27b661981a540724f803

In the report, the master pointer was used after being freed. This is
because another process had acquired the device's master mutex in
drm_setmaster_ioctl(), then overwrote fpriv->master in
drm_new_set_master(). The old value of fpriv->master was subsequently
freed before the mutex was unlocked.

To fix this, we lock the device's master mutex before retrieving the
pointer from from fpriv->master. This patch passes the Syzbot
reproducer test.

Reported-by: syzbot+c3a706cec1ea99e1c693@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Signed-off-by: Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi <desmondcheongzx@...il.com>
---

In this patch, I made the assumption that dev and file_priv->master->dev refer to the same struct drm_device*, and from my test runs this seemed to be the case. If this was a wrong assumption to make, please let me know.

 drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c | 9 +++++----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c
index d273d1a8603a..495a4767a443 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c
@@ -118,17 +118,18 @@ int drm_getunique(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
 		  struct drm_file *file_priv)
 {
 	struct drm_unique *u = data;
-	struct drm_master *master = file_priv->master;
+	struct drm_master *master;
 
-	mutex_lock(&master->dev->master_mutex);
+	mutex_lock(&dev->master_mutex);
+	master = file_priv->master;
 	if (u->unique_len >= master->unique_len) {
 		if (copy_to_user(u->unique, master->unique, master->unique_len)) {
-			mutex_unlock(&master->dev->master_mutex);
+			mutex_unlock(&dev->master_mutex);
 			return -EFAULT;
 		}
 	}
 	u->unique_len = master->unique_len;
-	mutex_unlock(&master->dev->master_mutex);
+	mutex_unlock(&dev->master_mutex);
 
 	return 0;
 }
-- 
2.25.1