netdev - Re: [RFC] debugfs: protect against rmmod while files are open

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]

Message-ID: <793a6ba5b534917018165d38bcb5e2c5704d82c7.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date:   Fri, 09 Oct 2020 12:56:59 +0200
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     "nstange@...e.de" <nstange@...e.de>,
        "ap420073@...il.com" <ap420073@...il.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "rafael@...nel.org" <rafael@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] debugfs: protect against rmmod while files are open

On Fri, 2020-10-09 at 10:56 +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Johannes Berg
> > Sent: 09 October 2020 11:48
> > 
> > On Fri, 2020-10-09 at 12:41 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > 
> > > If the fops doesn't have a release method, we don't even need
> > > to keep a reference to the real_fops, we can just fops_put()
> > > them already in debugfs remove, and a later full_proxy_release()
> > > won't call anything anyway - this just crashed/UAFed because it
> > > used real_fops, not because there was actually a (now invalid)
> > > release() method.
> > 
> > I actually implemented something a bit better than what I described - we
> > never need a reference to the real_fops for the release method alone,
> > and that means if the release method is in the kernel image, rather than
> > a module, it can still be called.
> > 
> > That together should reduce the ~117 places you changed in the large
> > patchset to around a handful.
> 
> Is there an equivalent problem for normal cdev opens
> in any modules?

I guess so, but since there's no proxy_fops infrastructure and no
revoke(), you can't really do anything else other than adding .owner
properly, afaict.

johannes