linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sh: intc: use after free in register_intc

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: <b24df2978b61101e34a6b7116c942a1b0d6bc434.camel@physik.fu-berlin.de>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2024 13:37:44 +0100
From: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>, Magnus Damm
	 <magnus.damm@...il.com>
Cc: Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>, Rich Felker
 <dalias@...c.org>,  "Ricardo B. Marliere"	 <ricardo@...liere.net>, Greg
 Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,  Paul Mundt
 <lethal@...ux-sh.org>, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sh: intc: use after free in register_intc_controller()

On Wed, 2024-10-23 at 11:41 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> In the error handling, for this function, we kfree(d) without ever
> removing it from the &intc_list which would lead to a use after free.  To
> fix this, lets only add it to the list after everything has succeeded.
> 
> Fixes: 2dcec7a988a1 ("sh: intc: set_irq_wake() support")
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
> ---
> This patch is highly speculative and I am not able to test it.  Please,
> review with care.
> 
>  drivers/sh/intc/core.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/sh/intc/core.c b/drivers/sh/intc/core.c
> index 74350b5871dc..ea571eeb3078 100644
> --- a/drivers/sh/intc/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/sh/intc/core.c
> @@ -209,7 +209,6 @@ int __init register_intc_controller(struct intc_desc *desc)
>  		goto err0;
>  
>  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&d->list);
> -	list_add_tail(&d->list, &intc_list);
>  
>  	raw_spin_lock_init(&d->lock);
>  	INIT_RADIX_TREE(&d->tree, GFP_ATOMIC);
> @@ -369,6 +368,7 @@ int __init register_intc_controller(struct intc_desc *desc)
>  
>  	d->skip_suspend = desc->skip_syscore_suspend;
>  
> +	list_add_tail(&d->list, &intc_list);
>  	nr_intc_controllers++;
>  
>  	return 0;

I think this approach is more sensible than the one suggested by Ridong Chen
and I'm therefor egoing to pick this one over the other solution.

Reviewed-by: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer
`. `'   Physicist
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913