linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/21] binder: fix use-after-free in shinker's callback

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]

Message-ID: <ZUQCBnPYf_fzlWnD@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 Nov 2023 20:09:42 +0000
From:   Carlos Llamas <cmllamas@...gle.com>
To:     "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@...roid.com>,
        Martijn Coenen <maco@...roid.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@...roid.com, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/21] binder: fix use-after-free in shinker's callback

On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 03:20:51PM -0400, Liam R. Howlett wrote:
> * Carlos Llamas <cmllamas@...gle.com> [231102 15:00]:
> > The mmap read lock is used during the shrinker's callback, which means
> > that using alloc->vma pointer isn't safe as it can race with munmap().
> 
> I think you know my feelings about the safety of that pointer from
> previous discussions.
> 

Yeah. The work here is not done. We actually already store the vm_start
address in alloc->buffer, so in theory we don't even need to swap the
alloc->vma pointer we could just drop it. So, I agree with you.

I want to include this saftey "fix" along with some other work that uses
the page fault handler and get_user_pages_remote(). I've tried a quick
prototype of this and it works fine.

> > diff --git a/drivers/android/binder_alloc.c b/drivers/android/binder_alloc.c
> > index e3db8297095a..c4d60d81221b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/android/binder_alloc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/android/binder_alloc.c
> > @@ -1005,7 +1005,9 @@ enum lru_status binder_alloc_free_page(struct list_head *item,
> >  		goto err_mmget;
> >  	if (!mmap_read_trylock(mm))
> >  		goto err_mmap_read_lock_failed;
> > -	vma = binder_alloc_get_vma(alloc);
> > +	vma = vma_lookup(mm, page_addr);
> > +	if (vma && vma != binder_alloc_get_vma(alloc))
> > +		goto err_invalid_vma;
> 
> Doesn't this need to be:
> if (!vma || vma != binder_alloc_get_vma(alloc))
> 
> This way, we catch a different vma and a NULL vma.
> 
> Or even, just:
> if (vma != binder_alloc_get_vma(alloc))
> 
> if the alloc vma cannot be NULL?
> 

If the vma_lookup() is NULL then we still need to isolate and free the
given binder page and we obviously skip the zap() in this case.

However, if we receive a random unexpected vma because of a corrupted
address or similar, then the whole process is skipped.

Thus, why we use the check above.

--
Carlos Llamas