[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <57eae113432e286b7e279102220c21fcf0bd1306.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 13:17:21 +0200
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Duoming Zhou <duoming@....edu.cn>, krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
alexander.deucher@....com, broonie@...nel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linma@....edu.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH net V2] nfc: nfcmrvl: main: reorder destructive
operations in nfcmrvl_nci_unregister_dev to avoid bugs
On Mon, 2022-04-25 at 17:58 +0800, Duoming Zhou wrote:
> There are destructive operations such as nfcmrvl_fw_dnld_abort and
> gpio_free in nfcmrvl_nci_unregister_dev. The resources such as firmware,
> gpio and so on could be destructed while the upper layer functions such as
> nfcmrvl_fw_dnld_start and nfcmrvl_nci_recv_frame is executing, which leads
> to double-free, use-after-free and null-ptr-deref bugs.
>
> There are three situations that could lead to double-free bugs.
>
> The first situation is shown below:
>
> (Thread 1) | (Thread 2)
> nfcmrvl_fw_dnld_start |
> ... | nfcmrvl_nci_unregister_dev
> release_firmware() | nfcmrvl_fw_dnld_abort
> kfree(fw) //(1) | fw_dnld_over
> | release_firmware
> ... | kfree(fw) //(2)
> | ...
>
> The second situation is shown below:
>
> (Thread 1) | (Thread 2)
> nfcmrvl_fw_dnld_start |
> ... |
> mod_timer |
> (wait a time) |
> fw_dnld_timeout | nfcmrvl_nci_unregister_dev
> fw_dnld_over | nfcmrvl_fw_dnld_abort
> release_firmware | fw_dnld_over
> kfree(fw) //(1) | release_firmware
> ... | kfree(fw) //(2)
>
> The third situation is shown below:
>
> (Thread 1) | (Thread 2)
> nfcmrvl_nci_recv_frame |
> if(..->fw_download_in_progress)|
> nfcmrvl_fw_dnld_recv_frame |
> queue_work |
> |
> fw_dnld_rx_work | nfcmrvl_nci_unregister_dev
> fw_dnld_over | nfcmrvl_fw_dnld_abort
> release_firmware | fw_dnld_over
> kfree(fw) //(1) | release_firmware
> | kfree(fw) //(2)
>
> The firmware struct is deallocated in position (1) and deallocated
> in position (2) again.
>
> The crash trace triggered by POC is like below:
>
> [ 122.640457] BUG: KASAN: double-free or invalid-free in fw_dnld_over+0x28/0xf0
> [ 122.640457] Call Trace:
> [ 122.640457] <TASK>
> [ 122.640457] kfree+0xb0/0x330
> [ 122.640457] fw_dnld_over+0x28/0xf0
> [ 122.640457] nfcmrvl_nci_unregister_dev+0x61/0x70
> [ 122.640457] nci_uart_tty_close+0x87/0xd0
> [ 122.640457] tty_ldisc_kill+0x3e/0x80
> [ 122.640457] tty_ldisc_hangup+0x1b2/0x2c0
> [ 122.640457] __tty_hangup.part.0+0x316/0x520
> [ 122.640457] tty_release+0x200/0x670
> [ 122.640457] __fput+0x110/0x410
> [ 122.640457] task_work_run+0x86/0xd0
> [ 122.640457] exit_to_user_mode_prepare+0x1aa/0x1b0
> [ 122.640457] syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x19/0x50
> [ 122.640457] do_syscall_64+0x48/0x90
> [ 122.640457] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
> [ 122.640457] RIP: 0033:0x7f68433f6beb
>
> What's more, there are also use-after-free and null-ptr-deref bugs
> in nfcmrvl_fw_dnld_start. If we deallocate firmware struct, gpio or
> set null to the members of priv->fw_dnld in nfcmrvl_nci_unregister_dev,
> then, we dereference firmware, gpio or the members of priv->fw_dnld in
> nfcmrvl_fw_dnld_start, the UAF or NPD bugs will happen.
>
> This patch reorders destructive operations after nci_unregister_device
> to avoid the double-free, UAF and NPD bugs, as nci_unregister_device
> is well synchronized and won't return if there is a running routine.
> This was mentioned in commit 3e3b5dfcd16a ("NFC: reorder the logic in
> nfc_{un,}register_device").
It looks like the above is not enough to close all the possible races,
specifically it looks like fw_dnld_timeout() and fw_dnld_rx_work() may
still race one vs another.
I *think* that the approach you already suggested here:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/1d34425a0ea8a553a66dcf4f22ca55cc920dbb42.1649913521.git.duoming@zju.edu.cn/
should be safer - but you have to protect with the same spinlock even
every fw_dnld->fw modification.
@Lin Ma: I see you don't like the spinlock solution, but this other
option looks racing. Do you have other suggestions? (and/or would you
reconsider the spinlock?)
Thanks!
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists