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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 2 Aug 2021 13:38:58 +0200
From:   Marcel Holtmann <>
To:     Tetsuo Handa <>
Cc:     Hillf Danton <>,
        Luiz Augusto von Dentz <>,
        Johan Hedberg <>,
        BlueZ <>,
        open list <>,
        Luiz Augusto von Dentz <>,,,
        syzbot <>
Subject: Re: [syzbot] general protection fault in hci_release_dev

Hi Tetsuo,

>> To fix what was addressed in e305509e678b3a4a, defer putting hdev until
>> sock is released with sock locked.
>> Now only for thoughts.
> Thanks for your analysis.
> hci_alloc_dev() is called from hci_uart_register_dev() from  hci_uart_set_proto()
> from hci_uart_tty_ioctl(HCIUARTSETPROTO) via ld->ops->ioctl() from tty_ioctl(),
> and bt_host_release() is called from device_release() from kobject_put() from
> hci_uart_tty_close() from tty_ldisc_kill() from tty_ldisc_release() from
> tty_release_struct() from tty_release() from __fput().
> The problem is that bt_host_release() is expecting that hci_register_dev()
> was called if "struct hci_dev" was allocated by hci_alloc_dev(). In other
> words, hci_register_dev() might not be called before bt_host_release().
> Then, the fix I think is not to call hci_release_dev() when hci_unregister_dev()
> was not called. That is,
> static void bt_host_release(struct device *dev)
> {
>        struct hci_dev *hdev = to_hci_dev(dev);
> +
> +       if (hci_dev_test_flag(hdev, HCI_UNREGISTER))
> +               hci_release_dev(hdev);
>        kfree(hdev);
>        module_put(THIS_MODULE);
> }
> and remove kfree(hdev) from hci_release_dev(), for HCI_UNREGISTER flag is
> set if hci_unregister_dev() was called before bt_host_release() is called.

actually I am wondering if we should just remove the HCI LDISC support. All the tests
are focusing around the fact that you can create a line discipline as unprivileged

To be honest the HCI LDISC support is not in use anymore for anything deployed after
we got around to establish TTY serdev support.

I am worried that we are trying hard to fix something in the Bluetooth core that
is actually a bug in the hci_uart driver and should be fixed solely there. Or that
driver needs to be deprecated. Are other drivers and their lifetime rules also
exhibiting these issues?



Powered by blists - more mailing lists