netdev - Re: [PATCH v3] tun: fix use-after-free when register netdev failed

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:   Thu, 22 Aug 2019 14:07:47 +0800
From:   Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@...wei.com>
To:     Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:     <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>, <weiyongjun1@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] tun: fix use-after-free when register netdev failed



On 2019/8/22 10:13, Jason Wang wrote:
>
> On 2019/8/20 上午10:28, Jason Wang wrote:
>>
>> On 2019/8/20 上午9:25, David Miller wrote:
>>> From: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@...wei.com>
>>> Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 21:31:19 +0800
>>>
>>>> Call tun_attach() after register_netdevice() to make sure tfile->tun
>>>> is not published until the netdevice is registered. So the read/write
>>>> thread can not use the tun pointer that may freed by free_netdev().
>>>> (The tun and dev pointer are allocated by alloc_netdev_mqs(), they can
>>>> be freed by netdev_freemem().)
>>> register_netdevice() must always be the last operation in the order of
>>> network device setup.
>>>
>>> At the point register_netdevice() is called, the device is visible 
>>> globally
>>> and therefore all of it's software state must be fully initialized and
>>> ready for us.
>>>
>>> You're going to have to find another solution to these problems.
>>
>>
>> The device is loosely coupled with sockets/queues. Each side is 
>> allowed to be go away without caring the other side. So in this case, 
>> there's a small window that network stack think the device has one 
>> queue but actually not, the code can then safely drop them. Maybe 
>> it's ok here with some comments?
>>
>> Or if not, we can try to hold the device before tun_attach and drop 
>> it after register_netdevice().
>
>
> Hi Yang:
>
> I think maybe we can try to hold refcnt instead of playing real num 
> queues here. Do you want to post a V4?
I think the refcnt can prevent freeing the memory in this case.
When register_netdevice() failed, free_netdev() will be called directly,
dev->pcpu_refcnt and dev are freed without checking refcnt of dev.

>
> Thanks
>
>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>
> .
>