netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] net/rose: Fix Use-After-Free in rose

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: <CANn89i+uXB__Bx7HAJt1Dg-P-cWyQUQk1SshE0jHjcTdODS9_w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2023 11:33:15 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Hyunwoo Kim <v4bel@...ori.io>
Cc: ralf@...ux-mips.org, imv4bel@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net, 
	kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, linux-hams@...r.kernel.org, 
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net/rose: Fix Use-After-Free in rose_ioctl

On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 5:13 AM Hyunwoo Kim <v4bel@...ori.io> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Please add a Fixes: tag

> 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);

You need interrupt safety here.

sk_receive_queue can be fed from interrupt, that would potentially deadlock.

>                 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
>