netdev - Re: netlink: GPF in sock

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]

Date:   Tue, 13 Dec 2016 16:17:14 -0800
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-audit@...hat.com, Paul Moore <pmoore@...hat.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>,
        Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: netlink: GPF in sock_sndtimeo

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 2:52 AM, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com> wrote:
> It is actually the audit_pid and audit_nlk_portid that I care about
> more.  The audit daemon could vanish or close the socket while the
> kernel sock to which it was attached is still quite valid.  Accessing
> the set of three atomically is the urge.  I wonder if it makes more
> sense to test for the presence of auditd using audit_sock rather than
> audit_pid, but still keep audit_pid for our reporting and replacement
> strategy.  Another idea would be to put the three in one struct.

Note, the process has audit_pid should hold a refcnt to the netns too,
so the netns can't be gone until that process is gone.

>
> Can someone explain how they think the original test was able to trigger
> this GPF?  Network namespace shutdown while something pretended to set
> up a new auditd?  That's impressive for a fuzzer if that's the case...
> Is there an strace?  I guess it is all in test().
>

I am surprised you still don't get the race condition even when you
are now working on v2...

The race happens in this scenarios :

1) Create a new netns

2) In the new netns, communicate with kauditd to set audit_sock

3) Generate some audit messages, so kauditd will keep sending them
via audit_sock

4) exit the netns

5) the previous audit_sock is now going away, but kaudit_sock could still
access it in this small window.