netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2] l2tp: fix possible UAF when cleaning up tunnels

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: <a65127e4-544b-27e6-a1e1-e20e5fb4d480@katalix.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 14:57:02 +0100
From: James Chapman <jchapman@...alix.com>
To: Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, tparkin@...alix.com,
 syzbot+b471b7c936301a59745b@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
 syzbot+c041b4ce3a6dfd1e63e2@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] l2tp: fix possible UAF when cleaning up
 tunnels

On 08/07/2024 12:59, Hillf Danton wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 11:06:25 +0100 James Chapman <jchapman@...alix.com>
>> On 05/07/2024 11:32, Hillf Danton wrote:
>>> On Thu,  4 Jul 2024 16:25:08 +0100 James Chapman <jchapman@...alix.com>
>>>> --- a/net/l2tp/l2tp_core.c
>>>> +++ b/net/l2tp/l2tp_core.c
>>>> @@ -1290,17 +1290,20 @@ static void l2tp_session_unhash(struct l2tp_session *session)
>>>>    static void l2tp_tunnel_closeall(struct l2tp_tunnel *tunnel)
>>>>    {
>>>>    	struct l2tp_session *session;
>>>> -	struct list_head *pos;
>>>> -	struct list_head *tmp;
>>>>    
>>>>    	spin_lock_bh(&tunnel->list_lock);
>>>>    	tunnel->acpt_newsess = false;
>>>> -	list_for_each_safe(pos, tmp, &tunnel->session_list) {
>>>> -		session = list_entry(pos, struct l2tp_session, list);
>>>> +	for (;;) {
>>>> +		session = list_first_entry_or_null(&tunnel->session_list,
>>>> +						   struct l2tp_session, list);
>>>> +		if (!session)
>>>> +			break;
>>>> +		l2tp_session_inc_refcount(session);
>>>>    		list_del_init(&session->list);
>>>>    		spin_unlock_bh(&tunnel->list_lock);
>>>>    		l2tp_session_delete(session);
>>>>    		spin_lock_bh(&tunnel->list_lock);
>>>> +		l2tp_session_dec_refcount(session);
>>>
>>> Bumping refcount up makes it safe for the current cpu to go thru race
>>> after releasing lock, and if it wins the race, dropping refcount makes
>>> the peer head on uaf.
>>
>> Thanks for reviewing this. Can you elaborate on what you mean by "makes
>> the peer head on uaf", please?
>>
> Given race, there are winner and loser. If the current cpu wins the race,
> the loser hits uaf once winner drops refcount.

I think the session's dead flag would protect against threads racing in 
l2tp_session_delete to delete the same session.
Any thread with a pointer to a session should hold a reference on it to 
prevent the session going away while it is accessed. Am I missing a 
codepath where that's not the case?