[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM0EoMmUSGEY_wGHmZJkP5s=sr0zPJ2sOyTf3Uy6P3pN8XmvhA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 08:11:50 -0400
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Alex Young <alex000young@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, jiri@...nulli.us,
davem@...emloft.net, security@...nel.org, xkaneiki@...il.com,
hackerzheng666@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: sched: use-after-free in tcf_action_destroy
On Sat, Aug 17, 2024 at 5:35 AM Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 17, 2024 at 05:27:17PM +0800, Alex Young wrote:
> > Hi Jamal,
> >
> > Thanks your mention. I have reviewed the latest kernel code.
> > I understand why these two tc function threads can enter the kernel at the same
> > time. It's because the request_module[2] function in tcf_action_init_1. When the
> > tc_action_init_1 function to add a new action, it will load the action
> > module. It will
> > call rtnl_unlock to let the Thread2 into the kernel space.
> >
> > Thread1 Thread2
> > rtnetlink_rcv_msg rtnetlink_rcv_msg
> > rtnl_lock();
> > tcf_action_init
> > for(i;i<TCA_ACT_MAX_PRIO;i++)
> > act=tcf_action_init_1 //[1]
> > if (rtnl_held)
> > rtnl_unlock(); //[2]
> > request_module("act_%s", act_name);
> >
> > tcf_del_walker
> >
> > idr_for_each_entry_ul(idr,p,id)
> >
> > __tcf_idr_release(p,false,true)
> >
> > free_tcf(p) //[3]
> > if (rtnl_held)
> > rtnl_lock();
> >
> > if(IS_ERR(act))
> > goto err
> > actions[i] = act
> >
> > err:
> > tcf_action_destroy
> > a=actions[i]
> > ops = a->ops //[4]
> > I know this time window is small, but it can indeed cause the bug. And
> > in the latest
> > kernel, it have fixed the bug. But version 4.19.x is still a
> > maintenance version.
>
> 4.19.y is only going to be alive for 4 more months, and anyone still
> using it now really should have their plans to move off of it finished
> already (or almost finished.)
>
> If this is a request_module issue, and you care about 4.19.y kernels,
> just add that module to the modprobe exclude list in userspace which
> will prevent it from being loaded automatically. Or load it at boot
> time.
>
> And what specific commit resolved this issue in the older kernels? Have
> you attempted to just backport that change to 4.19.y?
>
And if you or anyone cares, here it is:
d349f997686887906b1183b5be96933c5452362a
cheers,
jamal
Powered by blists - more mailing lists