linux-kernel - Re: [patch 136/147] nilfs2: use refcount_dec_and

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 24 Sep 2021 20:09:31 +0900
From:   Ryusuke Konishi <konishi.ryusuke@...il.com>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        mm-commits@...r.kernel.org, Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 136/147] nilfs2: use refcount_dec_and_lock() to fix
 potential UAF

Hi,

On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 7:35 PM Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> > From: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>
> > Subject: nilfs2: use refcount_dec_and_lock() to fix potential UAF
> >
> > When the refcount is decreased to 0, the resource reclamation branch is
> > entered.  Before CPU0 reaches the race point (1), CPU1 may obtain the
> > spinlock and traverse the rbtree to find 'root', see nilfs_lookup_root().
> > Although CPU1 will call refcount_inc() to increase the refcount, it is
> > obviously too late.  CPU0 will release 'root' directly, CPU1 then accesses
> > 'root' and triggers UAF.
> >
> > Use refcount_dec_and_lock() to ensure that both the operations of decrease
> > refcount to 0 and link deletion are lock protected eliminates this risk.
> >
> >      CPU0                      CPU1
> > nilfs_put_root():
> >                           <-------- (1)
> > spin_lock(&nilfs->ns_cptree_lock);
> > rb_erase(&root->rb_node, &nilfs->ns_cptree);
> > spin_unlock(&nilfs->ns_cptree_lock);
> >
> > kfree(root);
> >                           <-------- use-after-free
>
> > There is no reproduction program, and the above is only theoretical
> > analysis.
>
> Ok, so we have a theoretical bug, and fix already on its way to
> stable. But ... is it correct?
>
> > +++ a/fs/nilfs2/the_nilfs.c
> > @@ -792,14 +792,13 @@ nilfs_find_or_create_root(struct the_nil
> >
> >  void nilfs_put_root(struct nilfs_root *root)
> >  {
> > -     if (refcount_dec_and_test(&root->count)) {
> > -             struct the_nilfs *nilfs = root->nilfs;
> > +     struct the_nilfs *nilfs = root->nilfs;
> >
> > -             nilfs_sysfs_delete_snapshot_group(root);
> > -
> > -             spin_lock(&nilfs->ns_cptree_lock);
> > +     if (refcount_dec_and_lock(&root->count, &nilfs->ns_cptree_lock)) {
> >               rb_erase(&root->rb_node, &nilfs->ns_cptree);
> >               spin_unlock(&nilfs->ns_cptree_lock);
> > +
> > +             nilfs_sysfs_delete_snapshot_group(root);
> >               iput(root->ifile);
> >
> >               kfree(root);
>
> spin_lock() is deleted, but spin_unlock() is not affected. This means
> unbalanced locking, right?

It's okay.   spin_lock() is integrated into refcount_dec_and_lock(), which was
originally refcount_dec_and_test().

Thanks,
Ryusuke Konishi

>
> Best regards,
>                                                                 Pavel
> --
> DENX Software Engineering GmbH,      Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
> HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
>