linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] blktrace: Fix uaf in blk_trace access after removing by sysfs

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]

Message-ID: <YUq9X2dHG+LkMvQ6@infradead.org>
Date:   Wed, 22 Sep 2021 06:21:35 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1@...wei.com>
Cc:     axboe@...nel.dk, rostedt@...dmis.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        acme@...hat.com, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yukuai3@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blktrace: Fix uaf in blk_trace access after removing by
 sysfs

On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 05:21:20PM +0800, Zhihao Cheng wrote:
> +		else {
> +			/*
> +			 * Don't remove blk_trace under running state, in
> +			 * case triggering use-after-free in function
> +			 * __blk_add_trace().
> +			 */
> +			if (bt->trace_state != Blktrace_running)
> +				ret = blk_trace_remove_queue(q);
> +			else
> +				ret = -EBUSY;
> +		}
>  		goto out_unlock_bdev;

So who is going to eventually call blk_trace_free in this case?

Also Having the check in blk_trace_remove_queue would seem a little
cleaner.