netdev - Re: [PATCH] net/9p: Initialize the iounit field during fid creation

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: <311190f4-3eba-b2d2-1a5e-a00aad8d64dc@wanadoo.fr>
Date:   Sun, 10 Jul 2022 08:45:04 +0200
From:   Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
To:     Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@...il.com>,
        Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@...kov.net>,
        Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>,
        Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@...debyte.com>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/9p: Initialize the iounit field during fid creation

Le 09/07/2022 à 22:00, Tyler Hicks a écrit :
> Ensure that the fid's iounit field is set to zero when a new fid is
> created. Certain 9P operations, such as OPEN and CREATE, allow the
> server to reply with an iounit size which the client code assigns to the
> fid struct shortly after the fid is created in p9_fid_create(). Other
> operations that follow a call to p9_fid_create(), such as an XATTRWALK,
> don't include an iounit value in the reply message from the server. In
> the latter case, the iounit field remained uninitialized. Depending on
> allocation patterns, the iounit value could have been something
> reasonable that was carried over from previously freed fids or, in the
> worst case, could have been arbitrary values from non-fid related usages
> of the memory location.
> 
> The bug was detected in the Windows Subsystem for Linux 2 (WSL2) kernel
> after the uninitialized iounit field resulted in the typical sequence of
> two getxattr(2) syscalls, one to get the size of an xattr and another
> after allocating a sufficiently sized buffer to fit the xattr value, to
> hit an unexpected ERANGE error in the second call to getxattr(2). An
> uninitialized iounit field would sometimes force rsize to be smaller
> than the xattr value size in p9_client_read_once() and the 9P server in
> WSL refused to chunk up the READ on the attr_fid and, instead, returned
> ERANGE to the client. The virtfs server in QEMU seems happy to chunk up
> the READ and this problem goes undetected there. However, there are
> likely other non-xattr implications of this bug that could cause
> inefficient communication between the client and server.
> 
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...ux.microsoft.com>
> ---
> 
> Note that I haven't had a chance to identify when this bug was
> introduced so I don't yet have a proper Fixes tag. The history looked a
> little tricky to me but I'll have another look in the coming days. We
> started hitting this bug after trying to move from linux-5.10.y to
> linux-5.15.y but I didn't see any obvious changes between those two
> series. I'm not confident of this theory but perhaps the fid refcounting
> changes impacted the fid allocation patterns enough to uncover the
> latent bug?
> 
>   net/9p/client.c | 1 +
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/net/9p/client.c b/net/9p/client.c
> index 8bba0d9cf975..1dfceb9154f7 100644
> --- a/net/9p/client.c
> +++ b/net/9p/client.c
> @@ -899,6 +899,7 @@ static struct p9_fid *p9_fid_create(struct p9_client *clnt)
>   	fid->clnt = clnt;
>   	fid->rdir = NULL;
>   	fid->fid = 0;
> +	fid->iounit = 0;
>   	refcount_set(&fid->count, 1);
>   
>   	idr_preload(GFP_KERNEL);

Hi,
you could also kzalloc 'fid' and remove the memset, "= NULL" and "= 0".
This would be even more future proof and would save some LoC.

Just my 2c,

CJ