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:   Wed, 21 Jul 2021 17:13:08 +0200
From:   Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
To:     "Ziyang Xuan (William)" <william.xuanziyang@...wei.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, mkl@...gutronix.de,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] can: raw: fix raw_rcv panic for sock UAF



On 21.07.21 13:37, Ziyang Xuan (William) wrote:
> On 7/21/2021 5:24 PM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:

>>
>> Can you please resend the below patch as suggested by Greg KH and add my
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
>>
>> as it also adds the dev_get_by_index() return check.
>>
>> diff --git a/net/can/raw.c b/net/can/raw.c
>> index ed4fcb7ab0c3..d3cbc32036c7 100644
>> --- a/net/can/raw.c
>> +++ b/net/can/raw.c
>> @@ -544,14 +544,18 @@ static int raw_setsockopt(struct socket *sock, int level, int optname,
>>           } else if (count == 1) {
>>               if (copy_from_sockptr(&sfilter, optval, sizeof(sfilter)))
>>                   return -EFAULT;
>>           }
>>
>> +        rtnl_lock();
>>           lock_sock(sk);
>>
>> -        if (ro->bound && ro->ifindex)
>> +        if (ro->bound && ro->ifindex) {
>>               dev = dev_get_by_index(sock_net(sk), ro->ifindex);
>> +            if (!dev)
>> +                goto out_fil;
>> +        }
> At first, I also use this modification. After discussion with my partner, we found that
> it is impossible scenario if we use rtnl_lock to protect net_device object.
> We can see two sequences:
> 1. raw_setsockopt first get rtnl_lock, unregister_netdevice_many later.
> It can be simplified to add the filter in raw_setsockopt, then remove the filter in raw_notify.
> 
> 2. unregister_netdevice_many first get rtnl_lock, raw_setsockopt later.
> raw_notify will set ro->ifindex, ro->bound and ro->count to zero firstly. The filter will not
> be added to any filter_list in raw_notify.
> 
> So I selected the current modification. Do you think so?
> 
> My first modification as following:
> 
> diff --git a/net/can/raw.c b/net/can/raw.c
> index ed4fcb7ab0c3..a0ce4908317f 100644
> --- a/net/can/raw.c
> +++ b/net/can/raw.c
> @@ -546,10 +546,16 @@ static int raw_setsockopt(struct socket *sock, int level, int optname,
>                                  return -EFAULT;
>                  }
> 
> +               rtnl_lock();
>                  lock_sock(sk);
> 
> -               if (ro->bound && ro->ifindex)
> +               if (ro->bound && ro->ifindex) {
>                          dev = dev_get_by_index(sock_net(sk), ro->ifindex);
> +                       if (!dev) {
> +                               err = -ENODEV;
> +                               goto out_fil;
> +                       }
> +               }
> 
>                  if (ro->bound) {
>                          /* (try to) register the new filters */
> @@ -559,11 +565,8 @@ static int raw_setsockopt(struct socket *sock, int level, int optname,
>                          else
>                                  err = raw_enable_filters(sock_net(sk), dev, sk,
>                                                           filter, count);
> -                       if (err) {
> -                               if (count > 1)
> -                                       kfree(filter);
> +                       if (err)
>                                  goto out_fil;
> -                       }
> 
>                          /* remove old filter registrations */
>                          raw_disable_filters(sock_net(sk), dev, sk, ro->filter,
> @@ -584,10 +587,14 @@ static int raw_setsockopt(struct socket *sock, int level, int optname,
>                  ro->count  = count;
> 
>    out_fil:
> +               if (err && count > 1)
> +                       kfree(filter);
> +

Setting the err variable to -ENODEV is a good idea but I do not like the 
movement of kfree(filter).

The kfree() has a tight relation inside the if-statement for ro->bound 
which makes it easier to understand.

Regards,
Oliver

ps. your patches have less context than mine. Do you have different 
settings for -U<n>, --unified=<n> for 'git diff' ?

>                  if (dev)
>                          dev_put(dev);
> 
>                  release_sock(sk);
> +               rtnl_unlock();
> 
>                  break;
> 
> @@ -600,10 +607,16 @@ static int raw_setsockopt(struct socket *sock, int level, int optname,
> 
>                  err_mask &= CAN_ERR_MASK;
> 
> +               rtnl_lock();
>                  lock_sock(sk);
> 
> -               if (ro->bound && ro->ifindex)
> +               if (ro->bound && ro->ifindex) {
>                          dev = dev_get_by_index(sock_net(sk), ro->ifindex);
> +                       if (!dev) {
> +                               err = -ENODEV;
> +                               goto out_err;
> +                       }
> +               }
> 
>                  /* remove current error mask */
>                  if (ro->bound) {
> @@ -627,6 +640,7 @@ static int raw_setsockopt(struct socket *sock, int level, int optname,
>                          dev_put(dev);
> 
>                  release_sock(sk);
> +               rtnl_unlock();
> 
>                  break;
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists