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:   Wed, 8 Mar 2017 08:51:18 -0500
From:   Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To:     Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>
Cc:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>, linux-audit@...hat.com,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: netlink: GPF in netlink_unicast

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 2017-03-07 14:23, Paul Moore wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com> wrote:
>> >> On 2017-03-07 09:29, Paul Moore wrote:
>> >>> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com> wrote:
>> >>> > On 2017-03-06 10:10, Cong Wang wrote:
>> >>> >> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com> wrote:
>> >>> >> > Hello,
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > I've got the following crash while running syzkaller fuzzer on
>> >>> >> > net-next/8d70eeb84ab277377c017af6a21d0a337025dede:
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > kasan: GPF could be caused by NULL-ptr deref or user memory access
>> >>> >> > general protection fault: 0000 [#1] SMP KASAN
>> >>> >> > Dumping ftrace buffer:
>> >>> >> >    (ftrace buffer empty)
>> >>> >> > Modules linked in:
>> >>> >> > CPU: 0 PID: 883 Comm: kauditd Not tainted 4.10.0+ #6
>> >>> >> > Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine,
>> >>> >> > BIOS Google 01/01/2011
>> >>> >> > task: ffff8801d79f0240 task.stack: ffff8801d7a20000
>> >>> >> > RIP: 0010:sock_sndtimeo include/net/sock.h:2162 [inline]
>> >>> >> > RIP: 0010:netlink_unicast+0xdd/0x730 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1249
>> >>> >> > RSP: 0018:ffff8801d7a27c38 EFLAGS: 00010206
>> >>> >> > RAX: 0000000000000056 RBX: ffff8801d7a27cd0 RCX: 0000000000000000
>> >>> >> > RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: 00000000000002b0
>> >>> >> > RBP: ffff8801d7a27cf8 R08: ffffed00385cf286 R09: ffffed00385cf286
>> >>> >> > R10: 0000000000000006 R11: ffffed00385cf285 R12: 0000000000000000
>> >>> >> > R13: dffffc0000000000 R14: ffff8801c2fc3c80 R15: 00000000014000c0
>> >>> >> > FS:  0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff8801dbe00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
>> >>> >> > CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
>> >>> >> > CR2: 0000000020cfd000 CR3: 00000001c758f000 CR4: 00000000001406f0
>> >>> >> > Call Trace:
>> >>> >> >  kauditd_send_unicast_skb+0x3c/0x70 kernel/audit.c:482
>> >>> >> >  kauditd_thread+0x174/0xb00 kernel/audit.c:599
>> >>> >> >  kthread+0x326/0x3f0 kernel/kthread.c:229
>> >>> >> >  ret_from_fork+0x31/0x40 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:430
>> >>> >> > Code: 44 89 fe e8 56 15 ff ff 8b 8d 70 ff ff ff 49 89 c6 31 c0 85 c9
>> >>> >> > 75 27 e8 b2 b2 f4 fd 49 8d bc 24 b0 02 00 00 48 89 f8 48 c1 e8 03 <42>
>> >>> >> > 80 3c 28 00 0f 85 37 06 00 00 49 8b 84 24 b0 02 00 00 4c 8d
>> >>> >> > RIP: sock_sndtimeo include/net/sock.h:2162 [inline] RSP: ffff8801d7a27c38
>> >>> >> > RIP: netlink_unicast+0xdd/0x730 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1249 RSP:
>> >>> >> > ffff8801d7a27c38
>> >>> >> > ---[ end trace ad1bba9d457430b6 ]---
>> >>> >> > Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal exception
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > This is not reproducible and seems to be caused by an elusive race.
>> >>> >> > However, looking at the code I don't see any proper protection of
>> >>> >> > audit_sock (other than the if (!audit_pid) which is obviously not
>> >>> >> > enough to protect against races).
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> audit_cmd_mutex is supposed to protect it, I think.
>> >>> >> But kauditd_send_unicast_skb() seems not holding this mutex.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Hmmmm, I wonder if it makes sense to wrap most of the contents of the
>> >>> > outer while loop in kauditd_thread in the audit_cmd_mutex, or around the
>> >>> > first two innter while loops and the "if (auditd)" condition after the
>> >>> > "quick_loop:" label.  The condition on auditd is supposed to catch that
>> >>> > case.  We don't want it locked while playing with the scheduler at the
>> >>> > bottom of that function.
>> >>>
>> >>> Let me look into this and play around with a few things.  I suspected
>> >>> there might be a problem here, so I've got thoughts on how we might
>> >>> resolve it; I just need to see code them up and see what option sucks
>> >>> the least.
>> >>>
>> >>> FWIW Richard, yes wrapping most of kauditd_thread *should* resolve
>> >>> this but it's pretty heavy handed and not my first choice.
>> >>
>> >> That's why the inner loops made a bit more sense since it wasn't really
>> >> necessary and ran afoul of the scheduler anyways.
>> >
>> > One of my preferred options was to get us away from protecting
>> > everything with the audit_cmd_mutex by creating a new locking approach
>> > for the auditd connection state (using RCU/spinlocks since it rarely
>> > changes in practice) and leaving the audit_cmd_mutex for it's
>> > traditional role.  This should minimize the performance impact of the
>> > lock and clean things up a bit.  I'm also moving all the auditd
>> > connection state into a single struct (instead of several variables
>> > associated only by convention) which moves us oh so slightly closer to
>> > allowing multiple auditd connections (hey, it's something).
>> >
>> > It's taking a bit longer than expected as I'm dealing with a bit of a
>> > head cold (or something) and my mind is far less than 100% at the
>> > moment ...
>>
>> Ooof.  I just noticed something, and maybe this is the fever talking,
>> but why do we ever NULL out audit_sock and why are we bothering with
>> those holds/puts?  We create the audit netlink socket in
>> audit_net_init() and it should remain valid until we kill it in
>> audit_next_exit(); we sorta cheat on this now because we track the
>> socket both in the per-netns audit_net struct as well as audit_sock,
>> but that doesn't make our audit_sock manipulations right ...
>
> At the moment, you are right, there is no reason to null audit_sock, and
> not like auditd will appear on a different sock yet.
>
> The only excuse I can give is that this was anticipating audit daemons
> in more than one user namespace necessarily with their own network
> namespaces.

It doesn't really matter at this point, but that argument still
doesn't make sense.  Regardless of how many audit daemons we support
on the system, there is no reason to NULLify the audit netlink socket
or get additional reference counts.  The audit_sock variable should
disappear and we should simply use the sock we create in the in the
network namespace callback; when an audit daemon connects to the
kernel we should simply record its network namespace and go from
there.

I'm testing an initial patchset that does this today, I hope to post
an initial RFC sometime this week.

Also, to clarify things a bit, my questions above were a bit
rhetorical, and mostly me venting some frustration and trying to
explain that there wasn't going to be an immediate, or small, fix for
this problem.  In general, don't feel you need to make excuses for
audit; it's full of problems, we all know this, and I'm more concerned
with fixing them than I am with trying to assign blame.  Assigning
blame doesn't fix anything, it just upsets people.

> The AUDIT_GET, AUDIT_LIST_RULES commands are treated
> properly since they use the per-netns audit_net struct and don't use the
> primary queue.  The AUDIT_USER_* messages are converted from their
> originating namespaces ok, but will need to be tracked what network
> namespace they came from for multiple audit daemons in the future.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com

Powered by blists - more mailing lists