linux-kernel - Re: How to reproduce the BUG general protection fault in hci_uart_tty

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]

Message-ID: <20230705122159.GA26742@linux-691t>
Date:   Wed, 5 Jul 2023 20:21:59 +0800
From:   joeyli <jlee@...e.com>
To:     Weiteng Chen <wchen130@....edu>, Yu Hao <yhao016@....edu>
Cc:     linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: How to reproduce the BUG general protection fault in
 hci_uart_tty_ioctl?

On Wed, Jul 05, 2023 at 05:36:36PM +0800, joeyli wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 05, 2023 at 04:41:48PM +0800, joeyli wrote:
> > Hi Weiteng Chen, Yu Hao, 
> > 
> > On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 09:07:38PM -0700, Weiteng Chen wrote:
> > > Hi Joey,
> > > 
> > > Sorry for my late response.
> > > 
> > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.3-rc7/source/drivers/bluetooth/hci_ldisc.c#L764
> > > 
> > > switch (cmd) {
> > >         case HCIUARTSETPROTO:
> > >                 if (!test_and_set_bit(HCI_UART_PROTO_SET, &hu->flags)) {
> > >                         printk(“test_and_set_bit…”) // insert a prink to make the race easy to trigger
> > >                         err = hci_uart_set_proto(hu, arg);
> > >                         if (err)
> > >                                 clear_bit(HCI_UART_PROTO_SET, &hu->flags);
> > >                 } else
> > >                         err = -EBUSY;
> > >                 break;
> > > 
> > >         case HCIUARTGETPROTO:
> > >                 if (test_bit(HCI_UART_PROTO_SET, &hu->flags))
> > >                         err = hu->proto->id;  ←- null pointer deference
> > >                 else
> > >                         err = -EUNATCH;
> > >                 break;
> > > 
> > > This is a race condition between HCIUARTSETPROTO and HCIUARTGETPROTO. HCI_UART_PROTO_SET is set before hu->proto is set and thus it may dereference a null pointer.
> > > 
> > > To easily trigger this bug, I inserted a prink in the source code so that the C producer can easily trigger the bug. Please let me know if you have any questions.
> > > 
> > 
> > Thanks! I can reproduce the issue now. 
> > 
> > Weiteng, Yu Hao, do you have plan for sending patch to fix this problem?
> > 
> > Joey Lee
> 
> Looks that check HCI_UART_PROTO_READY is enough to avoid problem:
> 
> --- linux.orig/drivers/bluetooth/hci_ldisc.c
> +++ linux/drivers/bluetooth/hci_ldisc.c
> @@ -771,7 +771,7 @@ static int hci_uart_tty_ioctl(struct tty
>                 break;
>  
>         case HCIUARTGETPROTO:
> -               if (test_bit(HCI_UART_PROTO_SET, &hu->flags))
> +               if (test_bit(HCI_UART_PROTO_READY, &hu->flags))
>                         err = hu->proto->id;
>                 else
>                         err = -EUNATCH;
> 
> If you do not have plan to send patch, then I will send the above change.
> 

Updated patch. The HCI_UART_PROTO_SET should still be checked with
HCI_UART_PROTO_READY:

--- linux.orig/drivers/bluetooth/hci_ldisc.c
+++ linux/drivers/bluetooth/hci_ldisc.c
@@ -771,7 +771,8 @@ static int hci_uart_tty_ioctl(struct tty
                break;
 
        case HCIUARTGETPROTO:
-               if (test_bit(HCI_UART_PROTO_SET, &hu->flags))
+               if (test_bit(HCI_UART_PROTO_SET, &hu->flags) &&
+                   test_bit(HCI_UART_PROTO_READY, &hu->flags))
                        err = hu->proto->id;
                else
                        err = -EUNATCH;

I have tested this patch a couple of hours. I didn't reproduce
issue.

Regards
Joey Lee

> > 
> > 
> > > Best,
> > > Weiteng Chen
> > > 
> > > > On Jul 3, 2023, at 8:01 PM, joeyli <jlee@...e.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 06:57:47PM -0700, Yu Hao wrote:
> > > >> Hi Weiteng,
> > > >> 
> > > >> Could you give more info about the bug, e.g., kernel configuration,
> > > >> qemu arguments.
> > > >> 
> > > > 
> > > > Base on kernel code, looks that the HCIUARTSETPROTO and HCIUARTGETPROTO
> > > > blocks in hci_uart_tty_ioctl() should use hci_uart->proto_lock. 
> > > > 
> > > > I have run the C reproducer a couple of days in qemu, but it did not
> > > > reproduce issue until now.
> > > > 
> > > > Does anyone know how to reproduce this issue easily?
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Joey Lee
> > > >> 
> > > >> On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 8:02 AM joeyli <jlee@...e.com> wrote:
> > > >>> 
> > > >>> Hi Yu Hao,
> > > >>> 
> > > >>> I am looking at your "BUG: general protection fault in hci_uart_tty_ioctl":
> > > >>> 
> > > >>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/CA+UBctC3p49aTgzbVgkSZ2+TQcqq4fPDO7yZitFT5uBPDeCO2g@mail.gmail.com/
> > > >>> 
> > > >>> I am trying the C reproducer in your URL, but it is not success yet:
> > > >>> https://gist.github.com/ZHYfeng/a3e3ff2bdfea5ed5de5475f0b54d55cb
> > > >>> 
> > > >>> I am using v6.2 mainline kernel to run the C reproducer.
> > > >>> 
> > > >>> Could you please provide suggestions for how to reproduce this issue?
> > > >>> And what is your qemu environment for reproducing issue?
> > > >>> 
> > > >>> Thanks a lot!
> > > >>> Joey Lee