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

Date:   Sun, 8 May 2022 12:43:26 +0100
From:   Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, 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 15:18, Jens Axboe wrote:
> 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

Yep, still in the repo:

https://github.com/isilence/linux/tree/5.10_revert

> 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...

We can try, but I'm not too comfortable with those backports, I had
to considerably rewrite last three patches or so. Another option
is to disable retries from the rw callback if the iter has been
truncated.

-- 
Pavel Begunkov