linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V1] fuse: Abort the requests under processing queue with a spin

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]

Date:   Wed, 31 May 2023 13:52:09 +0200
From:   Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:     Pradeep P V K <quic_pragalla@...cinc.com>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V1] fuse: Abort the requests under processing queue with a spin_lock

On Wed, 31 May 2023 at 11:26, Pradeep P V K <quic_pragalla@...cinc.com> wrote:
>
> There is a potential race/timing issue while aborting the
> requests on processing list between fuse_dev_release() and
> fuse_abort_conn(). This is resulting into below warnings
> and can even result into UAF issues.

Okay, but...

>
> [22809.190255][T31644] refcount_t: underflow; use-after-free.
> [22809.190266][T31644] WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 31644 at lib/refcount.c:28
> refcount_warn_saturate+0x110/0x158
> ...
> [22809.190567][T31644] Call trace:
> [22809.190567][T31644]  refcount_warn_saturate+0x110/0x158
> [22809.190569][T31644]  fuse_file_put+0xfc/0x104

...how can this cause the file refcount to underflow?  That would
imply that fuse_request_end() will be called for the same request
twice.  I can't see how that can happen with or without the locking
change.

Do you have a reproducer?

Thanks,
Miklos