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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri, 12 Aug 2022 12:25:09 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <>
To:     Siddh Raman Pant <>
Cc:     "Greg KH" <>,
        "johannes berg" <>,
        "david s. miller" <>,
        "eric dumazet" <>,
        "paolo abeni" <>,
        "netdev" <>,
        "linux-wireless" <>,
        "linux-kernel" <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] wifi: cfg80211: Fix UAF in ieee80211_scan_rx()

On Fri, 12 Aug 2022 21:57:31 +0530 Siddh Raman Pant wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2022 20:57:58 +0530  Greg KH  wrote:
> > rcu just delays freeing of an object, you might just be delaying the
> > race condition.  Just moving a single object to be freed with rcu feels
> > very odd if you don't have another reference somewhere.  
> As mentioned in patch message, in net/mac80211/scan.c, we have:
>         void ieee80211_scan_rx(struct ieee80211_local *local, struct sk_buff *skb)
>         {
>                 ...
>                 scan_req = rcu_dereference(local->scan_req);
>                 sched_scan_req = rcu_dereference(local->sched_scan_req);
>                 if (scan_req)
>                         scan_req_flags = scan_req->flags;
>                 ...
>         }
> So scan_req is probably supposed to be protected by RCU.
> Also, in ieee80211_local's definition at net/mac80211/ieee80211_i.h, we have:
>         struct cfg80211_scan_request __rcu *scan_req;
> Thus, scan_req is indeed supposed to be protected by RCU, which this patch
> addresses by adding a RCU head to the type's struct, and using kfree_rcu().
> The above snippet is where the UAF happens (you can refer to syzkaller's log),
> because __cfg80211_scan_done() is called and frees the pointer.

Similarly to Greg, I'm not very familiar with the code base but one
sure way to move things forward would be to point out a commit which
broke things and put it in a Fixes tag. Much easier to validate a fix
by looking at where things went wrong.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists