netdev - Re: [syzbot] [net?] KASAN: slab-use-after-free Read in unix_stream_read

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: <68873c3c-d1ec-4041-96d8-e6921be13de5@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 13:37:06 -0700
From: Shoaib Rao <rao.shoaib@...cle.com>
To: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        pabeni@...hat.com,
        syzbot+8811381d455e3e9ec788@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
        syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [syzbot] [net?] KASAN: slab-use-after-free Read in
 unix_stream_read_actor (2)


On 9/5/2024 1:15 PM, Shoaib Rao wrote:
>
> On 9/5/2024 12:46 PM, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
>> From: Shoaib Rao <rao.shoaib@...cle.com>
>> Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 00:35:35 -0700
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> I am not able to reproduce the issue. I have run the C program at least
>>> 100 times in a loop. In the I do get an EFAULT, not sure if that is
>>> intentional or not but no panic. Should I be doing something
>>> differently? The kernel version I am using is
>>> v6.11-rc6-70-gc763c4339688. Later I can try with the exact version.
>> The -EFAULT is the bug meaning that we were trying to read an 
>> consumed skb.
>>
>> But the first bug is in recvfrom() that shouldn't be able to read OOB 
>> skb
>> without MSG_OOB, which doesn't clear unix_sk(sk)->oob_skb, and later
>> something bad happens.
>>
>>    socketpair(AF_UNIX, SOCK_STREAM, 0, [3, 4]) = 0
>>    sendmsg(4, {msg_name=NULL, msg_namelen=0, 
>> msg_iov=[{iov_base="\333", iov_len=1}], msg_iovlen=1, 
>> msg_controllen=0, msg_flags=0}, MSG_OOB|MSG_DONTWAIT) = 1
>>    recvmsg(3, {msg_name=NULL, msg_namelen=0, msg_iov=NULL, 
>> msg_iovlen=0, msg_controllen=0, msg_flags=MSG_OOB}, 
>> MSG_OOB|MSG_WAITFORONE) = 1
>>    sendmsg(4, {msg_name=NULL, msg_namelen=0, 
>> msg_iov=[{iov_base="\21", iov_len=1}], msg_iovlen=1, 
>> msg_controllen=0, msg_flags=0}, MSG_OOB|MSG_NOSIGNAL|MSG_MORE) = 1
>>> recvfrom(3, "\21", 125, MSG_DONTROUTE|MSG_TRUNC|MSG_DONTWAIT, NULL, 
>>> NULL) = 1
>>    recvmsg(3, {msg_namelen=0}, MSG_OOB|MSG_ERRQUEUE) = -1 EFAULT (Bad 
>> address)
>>
>> I posted a fix officially:
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20240905193240.17565-5-kuniyu@amazon.com/__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!IJeFvLdaXIRN2ABsMFVaKOEjI3oZb2kUr6ld6ZRJCPAVum4vuyyYwUP6_5ZH9mGZiJDn6vrbxBAOqYI$ 
>>
>
> Thanks that is great. Isn't EFAULT,  normally indicative of an issue 
> with the user provided address of the buffer, not the kernel buffer.
>
> Shoaib
>
Can you provide the full test case that you used to reproduce the issue.

Thanks,

Shoaib