[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220315102657.GX3315@kadam>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2022 13:26:57 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: Duoming Zhou <duoming@....edu.cn>
Cc: linux-hams@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kuba@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
ralf@...ux-mips.org, jreuter@...na.de, thomas@...erried.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH net V4 1/2] ax25: Fix refcount leaks caused by
ax25_cb_del()
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 09:54:03AM +0800, Duoming Zhou wrote:
> The previous commit d01ffb9eee4a ("ax25: add refcount in ax25_dev to
> avoid UAF bugs") and commit feef318c855a ("ax25: fix UAF bugs of
> net_device caused by rebinding operation") increase the refcounts of
> ax25_dev and net_device in ax25_bind() and decrease the matching refcounts
> in ax25_kill_by_device() in order to prevent UAF bugs, but there are
> reference count leaks.
>
> The root cause of refcount leaks is shown below:
>
> (Thread 1) | (Thread 2)
> ax25_bind() |
> ... |
> ax25_addr_ax25dev() |
> ax25_dev_hold() //(1) |
> ... |
> dev_hold_track() //(2) |
> ... | ax25_destroy_socket()
> | ax25_cb_del()
> | ...
> | hlist_del_init() //(3)
> |
> |
> (Thread 3) |
> ax25_kill_by_device() |
> ... |
> ax25_for_each(s, &ax25_list) { |
> if (s->ax25_dev == ax25_dev) //(4) |
> ... |
>
> Firstly, we use ax25_bind() to increase the refcount of ax25_dev in
> position (1) and increase the refcount of net_device in position (2).
> Then, we use ax25_cb_del() invoked by ax25_destroy_socket() to delete
> ax25_cb in hlist in position (3) before calling ax25_kill_by_device().
> Finally, the decrements of refcounts in ax25_kill_by_device() will not
> be executed, because no s->ax25_dev equals to ax25_dev in position (4).
>
> This patch adds decrements of refcounts in ax25_release() and use
> lock_sock() to do synchronization. If refcounts decrease in ax25_release(),
> the decrements of refcounts in ax25_kill_by_device() will not be
> executed and vice versa.
>
> Fixes: d01ffb9eee4a ("ax25: add refcount in ax25_dev to avoid UAF bugs")
> Fixes: 87563a043cef ("ax25: fix reference count leaks of ax25_dev")
> Fixes: feef318c855a ("ax25: fix UAF bugs of net_device caused by rebinding operation")
> Reported-by: Thomas Osterried <thomas@...erried.de>
> Signed-off-by: Duoming Zhou <duoming@....edu.cn>
> ---
> Changes in V4:
> - Add decrements of refcounts in ax25_release() instead of using any additional variables.
I'm happy that this is simpler. I'm not super happy about the
if (sk->sk_wq) check. That seems like a fragile side-effect condition
instead of something deliberate. But I don't know networking so maybe
this is something which we can rely on.
When you sent the earlier patch then I asked if the devices in
ax25_kill_by_device() were always bound and if we could just use a local
variable instead of something tied to the ax25_dev struct. I still
wonder about that. In other words, could we just do this?
regards,
dan carpenter
diff --git a/net/ax25/af_ax25.c b/net/ax25/af_ax25.c
index 6bd097180772..4af9d9a939c6 100644
--- a/net/ax25/af_ax25.c
+++ b/net/ax25/af_ax25.c
@@ -78,6 +78,7 @@ static void ax25_kill_by_device(struct net_device *dev)
ax25_dev *ax25_dev;
ax25_cb *s;
struct sock *sk;
+ bool found = false;
if ((ax25_dev = ax25_dev_ax25dev(dev)) == NULL)
return;
@@ -86,6 +87,7 @@ static void ax25_kill_by_device(struct net_device *dev)
again:
ax25_for_each(s, &ax25_list) {
if (s->ax25_dev == ax25_dev) {
+ found = true;
sk = s->sk;
if (!sk) {
spin_unlock_bh(&ax25_list_lock);
@@ -115,6 +117,11 @@ static void ax25_kill_by_device(struct net_device *dev)
}
}
spin_unlock_bh(&ax25_list_lock);
+
+ if (!found) {
+ dev_put_track(ax25_dev->dev, &ax25_dev->dev_tracker);
+ ax25_dev_put(ax25_dev);
+ }
}
/*
Powered by blists - more mailing lists