[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0b6546f7-8a04-9d6e-50c3-483c8a1a6591@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 21:42:39 +0800
From: "chenxiaosong (A)" <chenxiaosong2@...wei.com>
To: Lyu Tao <tao.lyu@...l.ch>,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...merspace.com>,
"anna@...nel.org" <anna@...nel.org>,
"bjschuma@...app.com" <bjschuma@...app.com>
CC: "linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"liuyongqiang13@...wei.com" <liuyongqiang13@...wei.com>,
"yi.zhang@...wei.com" <yi.zhang@...wei.com>,
"zhangxiaoxu5@...wei.com" <zhangxiaoxu5@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 0/2] fix nfsv4 bugs of opening with O_ACCMODE flag
在 2022/4/13 20:07, Lyu Tao 写道:
>
> Hi Xiaosong,
>
>
> Thanks for keeping focusing on this bug.
>
>
> I applied this CVE for the NULL dereference bug at
> nfs4_valid_open_stateid() and added the following description to this
> CVE due to the NFS maintainers replied that to me.
>
> "An issue was discovered in fs/nfs/dir.c in the Linux kernel before
> 5.16.5. If an application sets the O_DIRECTORY flag, and tries to open a
> regular file, nfs_atomic_open() performs a regular lookup. If a regular
> file is found, ENOTDIR should occur, but the server instead returns
> uninitialized data in the file descriptor.
>
>
> Actually I'm still confused with the root cause of this bug. In the
> original PoC, there is no O_DIRECTORY flag but commit ac795161c936
> mentioned.
>
> Moreover, in your latest commit ab0fc21bc710, it said "After secondly
> opening a file with O_ACCMODE|O_DIRECT flags, nfs4_valid_open_stateid()
> will dereference NULL nfs4_state when lseek()." However, the original
> PoC opens the file only with O_RDWR|O_CREAT for the first time.
>
>
> Original PoC:
>
> fd = openat("./file1", o_RDWR|O_CREAT, 000);
>
> open("./file1",
> O_ACCMODE|O_CREAT|O_DIRECT|O_LARGEFILE|O_NOFOLLOW|O_NOATIME|O_CLOEXEC|FASYNC|0xb3000008,
> 001);
>
> lseek(fd, 9, SEEK_HOLE);
>
>
> I'll update this CVE's description after I figure out these.
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Tao
>
Hi Tao:
Yes, O_ACCEMODE is _not_ necessary when fistly open() file.
When open() the file secondly, O_ACCEMODE is necessary if we want to
reproduce the bug.
Waiting for your modification of the CVE's description.
Best Regards.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists