linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] binder: fix OOB in binder_add_freeze

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: <CAH5fLgiqgWy9BVpQ8dE6hMNvDopEMVT-4w3DffXONDo3t6NqEw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2024 10:06:14 +0200
From: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
To: Carlos Llamas <cmllamas@...gle.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>, Yu-Ting Tseng <yutingtseng@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	kernel-team@...roid.com, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] binder: fix OOB in binder_add_freeze_work()

On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 8:06 PM Carlos Llamas <cmllamas@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 07:52:37PM +0200, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> > > > I reviewed some other code paths to verify whether there are other
> > > > problems with processes dying concurrently with operations on freeze
> > > > notifications. I didn't notice any other memory safety issues, but I
> > >
> > > Yeah most other paths are protected with binder_procs_lock mutex.
> > >
> > > > noticed that binder_request_freeze_notification returns EINVAL if you
> > > > try to use it with a node from a dead process. That seems problematic,
> > > > as this means that there's no way to invoke that command without
> > > > risking an EINVAL error if the remote process dies. We should not
> > > > return EINVAL errors on correct usage of the driver.
> > >
> > > Agreed, this should probably be -ESRCH or something. I'll add it to v2,
> > > thanks for the suggestion.
> >
> > Well, maybe? I think it's best to not return errnos from these
> > commands at all, as they obscure how many commands were processed.
>
> This is problematic, particularly when it's a multi-command buffer.
> Userspace doesn't really know which one failed and if any of them
> succeeded. Agreed.
>
> >
> > Since the node still exists even if the process dies, perhaps we can
> > just let you create the freeze notification even if it's dead? We can
> > make it end up in the same state as if you request a freeze
> > notification and the process then dies afterwards.
>
> It's a dead node, there is no process associated with it. It would be
> incorrect to setup the notification as it doesn't have a frozen status
> anymore. We can't determine the ref->node->proc->is_frozen?
>
> We could silently fail and skip the notification, but I don't know if
> userspace will attempt to release it later... and fail with EINVAL.

I mean, userspace *has* to be able to deal with the case where the
process dies *right after* the freeze notification is registered. If
we make the behavior where it's already dead be the same as that case,
then we're not giving userspace any new things it needs to care about.

Alice