netdev - Re: Re: [PATCH] net: do not release sk in sk_wait

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: <20240815102329.172161-1-sunyiqixm@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 18:23:29 +0800
From: sunyiqi <sunyiqixm@...il.com>
To: pabeni@...hat.com
Cc: davem@...emloft.net,
	edumazet@...gle.com,
	kuba@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	sunyiqixm@...il.com
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] net: do not release sk in sk_wait_event

On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 12:03:37 +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On 8/15/24 10:49, sunyiqi wrote:
> > When investigating the kcm socket UAF which is also found by syzbot,
> > I found that the root cause of this problem is actually in
> > sk_wait_event.
> > 
> > In sk_wait_event, sk is released and relocked and called by
> > sk_stream_wait_memory. Protocols like tcp, kcm, etc., called it in some
> > ops function like *sendmsg which will lock the sk at the beginning.
> > But sk_stream_wait_memory releases sk unexpectedly and destroy
> > the thread safety. Finally it causes the kcm sk UAF.
> > 
> > If at the time when a thread(thread A) calls sk_stream_wait_memory
> > and the other thread(thread B) is waiting for lock in lock_sock,
> > thread B will successfully get the sk lock as thread A release sk lock
> > in sk_wait_event.
> > 
> > The thread B may change the sk which is not thread A expecting.
> > 
> > As a result, it will lead kernel to the unexpected behavior. Just like
> > the kcm sk UAF, which is actually cause by sk_wait_event in
> > sk_stream_wait_memory.
> > 
> > Previous commit d9dc8b0f8b4e ("net: fix sleeping for sk_wait_event()")
> > in 2016 seems do not solved this problem. Is it necessary to release
> > sock in sk_wait_event? Or just delete it to make the protocol ops
> > thread-secure.
> 
> As a I wrote previously, please describe the suspected race more 
> clearly, with the exact calls sequence that lead to the UAF.
> 
> Releasing the socket lock is not enough to cause UAF.

Thread A                 Thread B
kcm_sendmsg
 lock_sock               kcm_sendmsg
                          lock_sock (blocked & waiting)
 head = sk->seq_buf
 sk_stream_wait_memory
  sk_wait_event
   release_sock
                          lock_sock (get the lock)
                          head = sk->seq_buf
                          add head to sk->sk_write_queue
                          release_sock
   lock_sock              return
 err_out to free(head)
 release_sock
 return
// ...
kcm_release
 // ...
 __skb_queue_purge(&sk->sk_write_queue) // <--- UAF
 // ...

The repro can be downloaded here:
https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=b72d86aa5df17ce74c60
 
> Removing the release/lock pair in sk_wait_event() will break many 
> protocols (e.g. TCP) as the stack will not be able to land packets in 
> the receive queue while the socked lock is owned.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Paolo
> 

Also a question about it's protocol itself should carefully use low-level
kernel API encapsulation to ensure its thread-safety or kernel API should
guarantee thread-safety since sk_wait_event or sk_stream_wait_memory used
in many cases.

Sincerely,
Yiqi Sun