netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] appletalk: Fix Use-After-Free in atalk

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: Tue, 12 Dec 2023 13:24:01 +0100
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Hyunwoo Kim <v4bel@...ori.io>, kuniyu@...zon.com, davem@...emloft.net, 
	edumazet@...gle.com
Cc: imv4bel@...il.com, kuba@...nel.org, horms@...nel.org,
 dhowells@...hat.com,  lukas.bulwahn@...il.com, mkl@...gutronix.de,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] appletalk: Fix Use-After-Free in atalk_ioctl

On Sat, 2023-12-09 at 04:55 -0500, Hyunwoo Kim wrote:
> Because atalk_ioctl() accesses sk->sk_receive_queue
> without holding a sk->sk_receive_queue.lock, it can
> cause a race with atalk_recvmsg().
> A use-after-free for skb occurs with the following flow.
> ```
> atalk_ioctl() -> skb_peek()
> atalk_recvmsg() -> skb_recv_datagram() -> skb_free_datagram()
> ```
> Add sk->sk_receive_queue.lock to atalk_ioctl() to fix this issue.
> 
> Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
> Signed-off-by: Hyunwoo Kim <v4bel@...ori.io>
> ---
> v1 -> v2: Change the code style
> ---
>  net/appletalk/ddp.c | 8 +++++---
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/appletalk/ddp.c b/net/appletalk/ddp.c
> index 9ba04a69ec2a..016b8fb7f096 100644
> --- a/net/appletalk/ddp.c
> +++ b/net/appletalk/ddp.c
> @@ -1775,15 +1775,17 @@ static int atalk_ioctl(struct socket *sock, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
>  		break;
>  	}
>  	case TIOCINQ: {
> +		long amount = 0;
> +		struct sk_buff *skb;

Please, respect the reverse xmas tree order: no one-off exceptions even
in this period of the year (pun intended ;)


>  		/*
>  		 * These two are safe on a single CPU system as only
>  		 * user tasks fiddle here
>  		 */

Please remove the now obsoleted comment above.

Cheers,

Paolo