linux-kernel - Re: linux-stable-5.10-y CVE-2022-1508 of io

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: <fd9b34f1-5289-587a-2ba3-88f924af474c@kernel.dk>
Date:   Sat, 7 May 2022 08:18:46 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>,
        Guo Xuenan <guoxuenan@...wei.com>
Cc:     lee.jones@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        io-uring@...r.kernel.org, yi.zhang@...wei.com, houtao1@...wei.com
Subject: Re: linux-stable-5.10-y CVE-2022-1508 of io_uring module

On 5/7/22 3:16 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 5/6/22 19:22, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 5/6/22 10:15 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 5/6/22 9:57 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>> On 5/6/22 03:16, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>> On 5/5/22 8:11 AM, Guo Xuenan wrote:
>>>>>> Hi, Pavel & Jens
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CVE-2022-1508[1] contains an patch[2] of io_uring. As Jones reported,
>>>>>> it is not enough only apply [2] to stable-5.10.
>>>>>> Io_uring is very valuable and active module of linux kernel.
>>>>>> I've tried to apply these two patches[3] [4] to my local 5.10 code, I
>>>>>> found my understanding of io_uring is not enough to resolve all conflicts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since 5.10 is an important stable branch of linux, we would appreciate
>>>>>> your help in solving this problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, this really needs to get buttoned up for 5.10. I seem to recall
>>>>> there was a reproducer for this that was somewhat saner than the
>>>>> syzbot one (which doesn't do anything for me). Pavel, do you have one?
>>>>
>>>> No, it was the only repro and was triggering the problem
>>>> just fine back then
>>>
>>> I modified it a bit and I can now trigger it.
>>
>> Pavel, why don't we just keep it really simple and just always save the
>> iter state in read/write, and use the restore instead of the revert?
> 
> The problem here is where we're doing revert. If it's done deep in
> the stack and then while unwinding someone decides to revert it again,
> e.g. blkdev_read_iter(), we're screwed.
> 
> The last attempt was backporting 20+ patches that would move revert
> into io_read/io_write, i.e. REQ_F_REISSUE, back that failed some of
> your tests back then. (was it read retry tests iirc?)

Do you still have that series? Yes, if I recall correctly, the series
had an issue with the resubmit. Which might just be minor, I don't
believe we really took a closer look at that.

Let's resurrect that series and see if we can pull it to completion,
would be nice to finally close the chapter on this issue for 5.10...

-- 
Jens Axboe