linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rapidio: fix possible UAF when kfifo

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:   Fri, 18 Nov 2022 17:52:55 +0800
From:   wangweiyang <wangweiyang2@...wei.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:     <mporter@...nel.crashing.org>, <alex.bou9@...il.com>,
        <yangyingliang@...wei.com>, <jakobkoschel@...il.com>,
        <jhubbard@...dia.com>, <error27@...il.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rapidio: fix possible UAF when kfifo_alloc() fails

On 2022/11/18 4:45, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:18:02 +0800 Wang Weiyang <wangweiyang2@...wei.com> wrote:
> 
>> If kfifo_alloc() fails in mport_cdev_open(), goto err_fifo and just free
>> priv. But priv is still in the chdev->file_list, then list traversal
>> may cause UAF. This fixes the following smatch warning:
>>
>> drivers/rapidio/devices/rio_mport_cdev.c:1930 mport_cdev_open() warn: '&priv->list' not removed from list
>>
>> Fixes: e8de370188d0 ("rapidio: add mport char device driver")
>> Signed-off-by: Wang Weiyang <wangweiyang2@...wei.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/rapidio/devices/rio_mport_cdev.c | 3 +++
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/rapidio/devices/rio_mport_cdev.c b/drivers/rapidio/devices/rio_mport_cdev.c
>> index 3cc83997a1f8..c66b2c552b38 100644
>> --- a/drivers/rapidio/devices/rio_mport_cdev.c
>> +++ b/drivers/rapidio/devices/rio_mport_cdev.c
>> @@ -1930,6 +1930,9 @@ static int mport_cdev_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
>>  	filp->private_data = priv;
>>  	goto out;
>>  err_fifo:
>> +	mutex_lock(&chdev->file_mutex);
>> +	list_del(&priv->list);
>> +	mutex_unlock(&chdev->file_mutex);
>>  	kfree(priv);
>>  out:
>>  	return ret;
> 
> Surely it would be better to avoid adding the new instance onto the
> list until the new instance has been fully initialized?
> 

Thanks for your review. I'll send out a v2 patch later.