[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9cd0b0ae-c6c7-a5bc-a834-a84010702bbc@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2022 22:06:30 +0800
From: Jason Yan <yanaijie@...wei.com>
To: Duoming Zhou <duoming@....edu.cn>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC: <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>, <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
<martin.petersen@...cle.com>, <kuba@...nel.org>,
<john.garry@...wei.com>, <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
<davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: libsas: fix use-after-free bug in
smp_execute_task_sg
On 2022/9/20 22:42, Duoming Zhou wrote:
> When executing SMP task failed, the smp_execute_task_sg()
> calls del_timer() to delete the "slow_task->timer". However,
> if the timer handler sas_task_internal_timedout() is running,
> the del_timer() in smp_execute_task_sg() will not stop it
> and the UAF bug will happen. The process is shown below:
>
> (thread 1) | (thread 2)
> smp_execute_task_sg() | sas_task_internal_timedout()
> ... |
> del_timer() |
> ... | ...
> sas_free_task(task) |
> kfree(task->slow_task) //FREE|
> | task->slow_task->... //USE
>
> Fix by calling del_timer_sync() in smp_execute_task_sg(),
> which makes sure the timer handler have finished before
> the "task->slow_task" is deallocated.
>
> Fixes: 2908d778ab3e ("[SCSI] aic94xx: new driver")
> Signed-off-by: Duoming Zhou <duoming@....edu.cn>
> ---
> drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c b/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c
> index fa2209080cc..5ce25183010 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c
> @@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ static int smp_execute_task_sg(struct domain_device *dev,
> res = i->dft->lldd_execute_task(task, GFP_KERNEL);
>
> if (res) {
> - del_timer(&task->slow_task->timer);
> + del_timer_sync(&task->slow_task->timer);
> pr_notice("executing SMP task failed:%d\n", res);
> break;
> }
>
The timer should be triggered 10 seconds later. I am curious why we stay
this long before del_timer().
However this change looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: Jason Yan <yanaijie@...wei.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists