netdev - Re: [PATCH net 000/117] net: avoid to remove module when its debugfs is being used

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:   Fri, 09 Oct 2020 09:45:20 +0200
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:     Nicolai Stange <nstange@...e.de>
Cc:     David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
        'Taehee Yoo' <ap420073@...il.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        "wil6210@....qualcomm.com" <wil6210@....qualcomm.com>,
        "brcm80211-dev-list@...ress.com" <brcm80211-dev-list@...ress.com>,
        "b43-dev@...ts.infradead.org" <b43-dev@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org" <linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 000/117] net: avoid to remove module when its
 debugfs is being used

On Fri, 2020-10-09 at 07:09 +0200, Nicolai Stange wrote:
> Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, 2020-10-08 at 15:59 +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > > From: Taehee Yoo
> > > > Sent: 08 October 2020 16:49
> > > > 
> > > > When debugfs file is opened, its module should not be removed until
> > > > it's closed.
> > > > Because debugfs internally uses the module's data.
> > > > So, it could access freed memory.
> > > > 
> > > > In order to avoid panic, it just sets .owner to THIS_MODULE.
> > > > So that all modules will be held when its debugfs file is opened.
> > > 
> > > Can't you fix it in common code?
> 
> Probably not: it's the call to ->release() that's faulting in the Oops
> quoted in the cover letter and that one can't be protected by the
> core debugfs code, unfortunately.
> 
> There's a comment in full_proxy_release(), which reads as
> 
> 	/*
> 	 * We must not protect this against removal races here: the
> 	 * original releaser should be called unconditionally in order
> 	 * not to leak any resources. Releasers must not assume that
> 	 * ->i_private is still being meaningful here.
> 	 */

Yeah, found that too now :-)

> > Yeah I was just wondering that too - weren't the proxy_fops even already
> > intended to fix this?
> 
> No, as far as file_operations are concerned, the proxy fops's intent was
> only to ensure that the memory the file_operations' ->owner resides in
> is still valid so that try_module_get() won't splat at file open
> (c.f. [1]).

Right.

> You're right that the default "full" proxy fops do prevent all
> file_operations but ->release() from getting invoked on removed files,
> but the motivation had not been to protect the file_operations
> themselves, but accesses to any stale data associated with removed files
> ([2]).

:)

I actually got this to work in a crazy way, I'll send something out but
I'm sure it's a better idea to add the .owner everywhere, but please
let's do it in fewer than hundreds of patches :-)

johannes