[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120313202338.GA23737@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 16:23:38 -0400
From: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: tun oops dereferencing garbage nsproxy-> address.
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 01:10:06PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > > > My guess is the fuzzer called some syscall that set current->nsproxy
> > > > to garbage (0x0000000100000001), which later got dereferenced when it
> > > > subsequently randomly did an open() on tun.
> > >
> > > It smells like a memory stomp. current->nsproxy is always supposed to
> > > have a valid value, and it never would have an odd value. The value
> > > should always be at least 8 byte aligned.
> > >
> > > Since the value is impossible this doesn't feel like a path where the
> > > error handling is wrong.
> >
> > 0x0000000100000001 looks like one of strange values my fuzzer passes syscalls
> > when they ask for an address.
> >
> > So something managed to get that set as nsproxy. The fuzzer avoids calling
> > clone(), so are there other syscalls that might set this ?
>
> setns and unshare might touch the nsproxy for the same reasons as clone,
> but the rules are very similar to clone.
Hmm, the only way that seems possible to set nsproxy is if the process was run
with CAP_SYS_ADMIN, which it wasn't.
Maybe your theory holds water, and something else wrote that value to the
current thread at a random offset. Fun.
Dave
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists