[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231206041332.GA5721@ubuntu>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2023 20:13:32 -0800
From: Hyunwoo Kim <v4bel@...ori.io>
To: ralf@...ux-mips.org, edumazet@...gle.com
Cc: v4bel@...ori.io, imv4bel@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net,
kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, linux-hams@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v2] net/rose: Fix Use-After-Free in rose_ioctl
Because rose_ioctl() accesses sk->sk_receive_queue
without holding a sk->sk_receive_queue.lock, it can
cause a race with rose_accept().
A use-after-free for skb occurs with the following flow.
```
rose_ioctl() -> skb_peek()
rose_accept() -> skb_dequeue() -> kfree_skb()
```
Add sk->sk_receive_queue.lock to rose_ioctl() to fix this issue.
Signed-off-by: Hyunwoo Kim <v4bel@...ori.io>
---
v1 -> v2: Use sk->sk_receive_queue.lock instead of lock_sock.
---
net/rose/af_rose.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/net/rose/af_rose.c b/net/rose/af_rose.c
index 0cc5a4e19900..841c238de222 100644
--- a/net/rose/af_rose.c
+++ b/net/rose/af_rose.c
@@ -1316,8 +1316,10 @@ static int rose_ioctl(struct socket *sock, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
struct sk_buff *skb;
long amount = 0L;
/* These two are safe on a single CPU system as only user tasks fiddle here */
+ spin_lock(&sk->sk_receive_queue.lock);
if ((skb = skb_peek(&sk->sk_receive_queue)) != NULL)
amount = skb->len;
+ spin_unlock(&sk->sk_receive_queue.lock);
return put_user(amount, (unsigned int __user *) argp);
}
--
2.25.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists