linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/6] misc: fastrpc: Restrict untrusted app to attach to privileged PD

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: <2024081535-unfasten-afloat-9684@gregkh>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 07:15:50 +0200
From: "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: "Selvaraj, Joel (MU-Student)" <jsbrq@...souri.edu>
Cc: "srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org" <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ekansh Gupta <quic_ekangupt@...cinc.com>,
	stable <stable@...nel.org>,
	Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] misc: fastrpc: Restrict untrusted app to attach to
 privileged PD

On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 02:34:18AM +0000, Selvaraj, Joel (MU-Student) wrote:
> Hi Srinivas Kandagatla and Ekansh Gupta,
> 
> On 6/28/24 06:45, srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org wrote:
> > From: Ekansh Gupta <quic_ekangupt@...cinc.com>
> > 
> > Untrusted application with access to only non-secure fastrpc device
> > node can attach to root_pd or static PDs if it can make the respective
> > init request. This can cause problems as the untrusted application
> > can send bad requests to root_pd or static PDs. Add changes to reject
> > attach to privileged PDs if the request is being made using non-secure
> > fastrpc device node.
> > 
> > Fixes: 0871561055e6 ("misc: fastrpc: Add support for audiopd")
> > Cc: stable <stable@...nel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Ekansh Gupta <quic_ekangupt@...cinc.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
> > ---
> >   drivers/misc/fastrpc.c      | 22 +++++++++++++++++++---
> >   include/uapi/misc/fastrpc.h |  3 +++
> >   2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/misc/fastrpc.c b/drivers/misc/fastrpc.c
> > index 5680856c0fb8..a7a2bcedb37e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/misc/fastrpc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/misc/fastrpc.c
> > @@ -2087,6 +2087,16 @@ static int fastrpc_req_mem_map(struct fastrpc_user *fl, char __user *argp)
> >   	return err;
> >   }
> >   
> > +static int is_attach_rejected(struct fastrpc_user *fl)
> > +{
> > +	/* Check if the device node is non-secure */
> > +	if (!fl->is_secure_dev) {
> > +		dev_dbg(&fl->cctx->rpdev->dev, "untrusted app trying to attach to privileged DSP PD\n");
> > +		return -EACCES;
> > +	}
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> 
> This broke userspace for us. Sensors stopped working in SDM845 and other 
> qcom SoC devices running postmarketOS. Trying to communicate with the 
> fastrpc device just ends up with a permission denied error. This was 
> previously working. I am not sure if this is intended. Here are my two 
> observations:
> 
> 1. if change the if condition to
> 
> `if (!fl->is_secure_dev && fl->cctx->secure)`
> 
> similar to how it's done in fastrpc's `is_session_rejected()` function, 
> then it works. But I am not sure if this is an valid fix. But currently, 
> fastrpc will simply deny access to all fastrpc device that contains the 
> `qcom,non-secure-domain` dt property. Is that the intended change? 
> Because I see a lot of adsp, cdsp and sdsp fastrpc nodes have that dt 
> property.
> 
> 2. In the `fastrpc_rpmsg_probe()` function, it is commented that,
> 
> "Unsigned PD offloading is only supported on CDSP"
> 
> Does this mean adsp and sdsp shouldn't have the `qcom,non-secure-domain` 
> dt property? In fact, it was reported that removing this dt property and 
> using the `/dev/fastrpc-sdsp-secure` node instead works fine too. Is 
> this the correct way to fix it?
> 
> I don't know much about fastrpc, just reporting the issue and guessing 
> here. It would be really if this can be fixed before the stable release.

I will be glad to revert it, what was the git id for this in the tree
now?

thanks,

greg k-h