netdev - Re: [PATCH] 9p: fix crash when transaction killed

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]

Date:   Thu, 01 Dec 2022 10:26:12 +0800
From:   Schspa Shi <schspa@...il.com>
To:     asmadeus@...ewreck.org
Cc:     ericvh@...il.com, lucho@...kov.net, linux_oss@...debyte.com,
        davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
        pabeni@...hat.com, v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        syzbot+8f1060e2aaf8ca55220b@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 9p: fix crash when transaction killed


asmadeus@...ewreck.org writes:

> Schspa Shi wrote on Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 09:15:12PM +0800:
>> >> If the req was newly alloced(It was at a new page), refcount maybe not
>> >> 0, there will be problem in this case. It seems we can't relay on this.
>> >> 
>> >> We need to set the refcount to zero before add it to idr in p9_tag_alloc.
>> >
>> > Hmm, if it's reused then it's zero by definition, but if it's a new
>> > allocation (uninitialized) then anything goes; that lookup could find
>> > and increase it before the refcount_set, and we'd have an off by one
>> > leading to use after free. Good catch!
>> >
>> > Initializing it to zero will lead to the client busy-looping until after
>> > the refcount is properly set, which should work.
>> 
>> Why? It looks no different from the previous process here. Initializing
>> it to zero should makes no difference.
>
> I do not understand this remark.
> If this is a freed request it will be zero, because we freed the request
> as the refcount hit zero, but if it's a newly allocated request then the
> memory is uninitalized, and the lookup can get anything.

Here is my misunderstanding. I thought you meant that there would be a
loop on the client side to wait for the refcount to become a non-zero
value. Actually, there is no such loop.

>
> In that case we want refcount to be zero to have the check in
> p9_tag_lookup to not use the request until we set the refcount to 2.
>
>
>> > Setting refcount early might have us use an re-used req before the tag
>> > has been changed so that one cannot move.
>> >
>> > Could you test with just that changed if syzbot still reproduces this
>> > bug? (perhaps add a comment if you send this)
>> >
>> 
>> I have upload a new v2 change for this. But I can't easily reproduce
>> this problem.
>
> Ah, I read that v2 as you actually ran some tests with this, sorry for
> the misuderstanding.
>
> Well, it's a fix anyway, so it cannot hurt to apply...


-- 
BRs
Schspa Shi