netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC net v2 2/3] vsock: Fix transport

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: <o2erk5qbypfrla2afvlswzp7al43xulrucdo7b7wvnhsytjchm@jh6spvmgfo2c>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2025 11:47:08 +0200
From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To: Michal Luczaj <mhal@...x.co>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, 
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, 
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, 
	Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>, virtualization@...ts.linux.dev, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net v2 2/3] vsock: Fix transport_* TOCTOU

On Sun, Jun 29, 2025 at 11:26:25PM +0200, Michal Luczaj wrote:
>On 6/27/25 10:08, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 09:52:44PM +0200, Michal Luczaj wrote:
>>> Transport assignment may race with module unload. Protect new_transport
>>>from becoming a stale pointer.
>>>
>>> This also takes care of an insecure call in vsock_use_local_transport();
>>> add a lockdep assert.
>>>
>>> BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: fffffbfff8056000
>>> Oops: Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP KASAN
>>> RIP: 0010:vsock_assign_transport+0x366/0x600
>>> Call Trace:
>>> vsock_connect+0x59c/0xc40
>>> __sys_connect+0xe8/0x100
>>> __x64_sys_connect+0x6e/0xc0
>>> do_syscall_64+0x92/0x1c0
>>> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x4b/0x53
>>>
>>> Fixes: c0cfa2d8a788 ("vsock: add multi-transports support")
>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Luczaj <mhal@...x.co>
>>> ---
>>> net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>>> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
>>> index 63a920af5bfe6960306a3e5eeae0cbf30648985e..a1b1073a2c89f865fcdb58b38d8e7feffcf1544f 100644
>>> --- a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
>>> +++ b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
>>> @@ -407,6 +407,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vsock_enqueue_accept);
>>>
>>> static bool vsock_use_local_transport(unsigned int remote_cid)
>>> {
>>> +	lockdep_assert_held(&vsock_register_mutex);
>>> +
>>> 	if (!transport_local)
>>> 		return false;
>>>
>>> @@ -464,6 +466,8 @@ int vsock_assign_transport(struct vsock_sock *vsk, struct vsock_sock *psk)
>>>
>>> 	remote_flags = vsk->remote_addr.svm_flags;
>>>
>>> +	mutex_lock(&vsock_register_mutex);
>>> +
>>> 	switch (sk->sk_type) {
>>> 	case SOCK_DGRAM:
>>> 		new_transport = transport_dgram;
>>> @@ -479,12 +483,15 @@ int vsock_assign_transport(struct vsock_sock *vsk, struct vsock_sock *psk)
>>> 			new_transport = transport_h2g;
>>> 		break;
>>> 	default:
>>> -		return -ESOCKTNOSUPPORT;
>>> +		ret = -ESOCKTNOSUPPORT;
>>> +		goto err;
>>> 	}
>>>
>>> 	if (vsk->transport) {
>>> -		if (vsk->transport == new_transport)
>>> -			return 0;
>>> +		if (vsk->transport == new_transport) {
>>> +			ret = 0;
>>> +			goto err;
>>> +		}
>>
>> 		/* transport->release() must be called with sock lock acquired.
>> 		 * This path can only be taken during vsock_connect(), where we
>> 		 * have already held the sock lock. In the other cases, this
>> 		 * function is called on a new socket which is not assigned to
>> 		 * any transport.
>> 		 */
>> 		vsk->transport->release(vsk);
>> 		vsock_deassign_transport(vsk);
>>
>> Thinking back to this patch, could there be a deadlock between call
>> vsock_deassign_transport(), which call module_put(), now with the
>> `vsock_register_mutex` held, and the call to vsock_core_unregister()
>> usually made by modules in the exit function?
>
>I think we're good. module_put() does not call the module cleanup function
>(kernel/module/main.c:delete_module() syscall does that), so
>vsock_core_unregister() won't happen in this path here. Have I missed
>anything else?
>

Nope, I reached the same conclusion!

Thanks,
Stefano