[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANn89iLda2oxoPQaGd9r8frAaOu1LqxmWYm2O8W4HXaGRN8tcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 16:44:29 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Duoming Zhou <duoming@....edu.cn>
Cc: linux-hams@...r.kernel.org, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: rose: fix UAF bug caused by rose_t0timer_expiry
On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 4:38 PM Duoming Zhou <duoming@....edu.cn> wrote:
>
> There are UAF bugs caused by rose_t0timer_expiry(). The
> root cause is that del_timer() could not stop the timer
> handler that is running and there is no synchronization.
> One of the race conditions is shown below:
>
> (thread 1) | (thread 2)
> | rose_device_event
> | rose_rt_device_down
> | rose_remove_neigh
> rose_t0timer_expiry | rose_stop_t0timer(rose_neigh)
> ... | del_timer(&neigh->t0timer)
> | kfree(rose_neigh) //[1]FREE
> neigh->dce_mode //[2]USE |
>
> The rose_neigh is deallocated in position [1] and use in
> position [2].
>
> The crash trace triggered by POC is like below:
>
> BUG: KASAN: use-after-free in expire_timers+0x144/0x320
> Write of size 8 at addr ffff888009b19658 by task swapper/0/0
> ...
> Call Trace:
> <IRQ>
> dump_stack_lvl+0xbf/0xee
> print_address_description+0x7b/0x440
> print_report+0x101/0x230
> ? expire_timers+0x144/0x320
> kasan_report+0xed/0x120
> ? expire_timers+0x144/0x320
> expire_timers+0x144/0x320
> __run_timers+0x3ff/0x4d0
> run_timer_softirq+0x41/0x80
> __do_softirq+0x233/0x544
> ...
>
> This patch changes del_timer() in rose_stop_t0timer() and
> rose_stop_ftimer() to del_timer_sync() in order that the
> timer handler could be finished before the resources such as
> rose_neigh and so on are deallocated. As a result, the UAF
> bugs could be mitigated.
>
> Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
> Signed-off-by: Duoming Zhou <duoming@....edu.cn>
> ---
> net/rose/rose_link.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/rose/rose_link.c b/net/rose/rose_link.c
> index 8b96a56d3a4..9734d1264de 100644
> --- a/net/rose/rose_link.c
> +++ b/net/rose/rose_link.c
> @@ -54,12 +54,12 @@ static void rose_start_t0timer(struct rose_neigh *neigh)
>
> void rose_stop_ftimer(struct rose_neigh *neigh)
> {
> - del_timer(&neigh->ftimer);
> + del_timer_sync(&neigh->ftimer);
> }
Are you sure this is safe ?
del_timer_sync() could hang if the caller holds a lock that the timer
function would need to acquire.
>
> void rose_stop_t0timer(struct rose_neigh *neigh)
> {
> - del_timer(&neigh->t0timer);
> + del_timer_sync(&neigh->t0timer);
> }
Same here, please explain why it is safe.
>
> int rose_ftimer_running(struct rose_neigh *neigh)
> --
> 2.17.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists