linux-kernel - Re: 5.14-rc failure to resume

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

Date:   Sun, 25 Jul 2021 00:02:32 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Subject: Re: 5.14-rc failure to resume

On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 11:48 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 12:44 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
> >
> > This does appear to be the culprit. With it reverted on top of current
> > master (and with the block and io_uring changes pulled in too), the
> > kernel survives many resumes without issue.
>
> That commit seems fundamentally buggy.
>
> It makes "acpi_dev_get_next_match_dev()" always do
>
>         acpi_dev_put(adev);
>
> to put the previous device, but "adev" is perfectly valid as NULL, and
> acpi_dev_get_next_match_dev() even tests for it:
>
>         struct device *start = adev ? &adev->dev : NULL;
>
> so it can - and will - do
>
>         acpi_dev_put(NULL);
>
> which does
>
>         put_device(&adev->dev);
>
> and passes in an invalid pointer to put_device().
>
> And yes, that adev very much can be NULL, with drivers/acpi/utils.c
> even passing it in explicitly:
>
>   struct acpi_device *
>   acpi_dev_get_first_match_dev(const char *hid, const char *uid, s64 hrv)
>   {
>         return acpi_dev_get_next_match_dev(NULL, hid, uid, hrv);
>   }
>   EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_dev_get_first_match_dev);
>
> Am I missing something? How does that code work at all for anybody?
>
> I probably _am_ missing something.

Yeah, the two changes (acpi_dev_put() and this fix) were in separate
submissions during different times. So, what we have here:
1) this fix misses that one line to be changed and after adding it
2) reveals UAF, or i.o.w. NULL dereference which is a bug in acpi_dev_put().

acpi_dev_put() has to be

if (adev)
  put_device(&adev->dev);


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko