netdev - RE: [Patch bpf-next] sock_map: fix a potential use-after-free in sock_map

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: <606f9f2b26b1a_c8b9208a4@john-XPS-13-9370.notmuch>
Date:   Thu, 08 Apr 2021 17:26:19 -0700
From:   John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     bpf@...r.kernel.org, Cong Wang <cong.wang@...edance.com>,
        syzbot+7b6548ae483d6f4c64ae@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>,
        Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>
Subject: RE: [Patch bpf-next] sock_map: fix a potential use-after-free in
 sock_map_close()

Cong Wang wrote:
> From: Cong Wang <cong.wang@...edance.com>
> 
> The last refcnt of the psock can be gone right after
> sock_map_remove_links(), so sk_psock_stop() could trigger a UAF.
> The reason why I placed sk_psock_stop() there is to avoid RCU read
> critical section, and more importantly, some callee of
> sock_map_remove_links() is supposed to be called with RCU read lock,
> we can not simply get rid of RCU read lock here. Therefore, the only
> choice we have is to grab an additional refcnt with sk_psock_get()
> and put it back after sk_psock_stop().
> 
> Reported-by: syzbot+7b6548ae483d6f4c64ae@...kaller.appspotmail.com
> Fixes: 799aa7f98d53 ("skmsg: Avoid lock_sock() in sk_psock_backlog()")
> Cc: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
> Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
> Cc: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>
> Cc: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>
> Signed-off-by: Cong Wang <cong.wang@...edance.com>
> ---
>  net/core/sock_map.c | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/core/sock_map.c b/net/core/sock_map.c
> index f473c51cbc4b..6f1b82b8ad49 100644
> --- a/net/core/sock_map.c
> +++ b/net/core/sock_map.c
> @@ -1521,7 +1521,7 @@ void sock_map_close(struct sock *sk, long timeout)
>  
>  	lock_sock(sk);
>  	rcu_read_lock();

It looks like we can drop the rcu_read_lock()/unlock() section then if we
take a reference on the psock? Before it was there to ensure we didn't
lose the psock from some other context, but with a reference held this
can not happen.

> -	psock = sk_psock(sk);
> +	psock = sk_psock_get(sk);
>  	if (unlikely(!psock)) {
>  		rcu_read_unlock();
>  		release_sock(sk);
> @@ -1532,6 +1532,7 @@ void sock_map_close(struct sock *sk, long timeout)
>  	sock_map_remove_links(sk, psock);
>  	rcu_read_unlock();
>  	sk_psock_stop(psock, true);
> +	sk_psock_put(sk, psock);
>  	release_sock(sk);
>  	saved_close(sk, timeout);
>  }
> -- 
> 2.25.1
>