netdev - Re: [PATCH v0] nfc: nci: add flush

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20220423135249.GA3958174@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Sat, 23 Apr 2022 06:52:49 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Lin Ma <linma@....edu.cn>
Cc:     krzk@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org,
        pabeni@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mudongliangabcd@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v0] nfc: nci: add flush_workqueue to prevent uaf

On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 09:59:10PM +0800, Lin Ma wrote:
> Hello Guenter,
> 
> > I have been wondering about this and the same code further below.
> > What prevents the command timer from firing after the call to
> > flush_workqueue() ?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Guenter
> > 
> 
> From my understanding, once the flush_workqueue() is executed, the work that queued in
> ndev->cmd_wq will be taken the care of.
> 
> That is, once the flush_workqueue() is finished, it promises there is no executing or 
> pending nci_cmd_work() ever.
> 
> static void nci_cmd_work(struct work_struct *work)
> {
>     // ...
> 		mod_timer(&ndev->cmd_timer,
> 			  jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(NCI_CMD_TIMEOUT));
>     // ...
> }
> 
> The command timer is still able be fired because the mod_timer() here. That is why the
> del_timer_sync() is necessary after the flush_workqueue().
> 
> One very puzzling part is that you may find out the timer queue the work again
> 
> /* NCI command timer function */
> static void nci_cmd_timer(struct timer_list *t)
> {
>     // ...
> 	queue_work(ndev->cmd_wq, &ndev->cmd_work);
> }
> 
> But I found that this is okay because there is no packets in ndev->cmd_q buffers hence 
> even there is a queued nci_cmd_work(), it simply checks the queue and returns.
> 
> That is, the old race picture as below
> 
> > Thread-1                           Thread-2
> >                                  | nci_dev_up()
> >                                  |   nci_open_device()
> >                                  |     __nci_request(nci_reset_req)
> >                                  |       nci_send_cmd
> >                                  |         queue_work(cmd_work)
> > nci_unregister_device()          |
> >   nci_close_device()             | ...
> >     del_timer_sync(cmd_timer)[1] |
> > ...                              | Worker
> > nci_free_device()                | nci_cmd_work()
> >   kfree(ndev)[3]                 |   mod_timer(cmd_timer)[2]
> 
> is impossible now because the patched flush_workqueue() make the race like below
> 
> > Thread-1                           Thread-2
> >                                  | nci_dev_up()
> >                                  |   nci_open_device()
> >                                  |     __nci_request(nci_reset_req)
> >                                  |       nci_send_cmd
> >                                  |         queue_work(cmd_work)
> > nci_unregister_device()          |
> >   nci_close_device()             | ...
> >     flush_workqueue()[patch]     | Worker
> >                                  | nci_cmd_work()
> >                                  |   mod_timer(cmd_timer)[2]
> >     // work over then return
> >     del_timer_sync(cmd_timer)[1] |
> >                                  | Timer
> >                                  | nci_cmd_timer()
> >                                  | 
> >     // timer over then return    |
> > ...                              |
> > nci_free_device()                | 
> >   kfree(ndev)[3]                 | 
> 
> 
> With above thinkings and the given fact that my POC didn't raise the UAF, I think the 
> flush_workqueue() + del_timer_sync() combination is okay to hinder this race.
> 
> Tell me if there is anything wrong.
> 

Thanks a lot for the detailed explanation and analysis.
I agree with your conclusion.

Guenter