Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 30 Jun 2022 23:08:41 +0800 (GMT+08:00) | From | duoming@zju ... | Subject | Re: [PATCH net] net: rose: fix UAF bug caused by rose_t0timer_expiry |
| |
Hello,
On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 16:44:29 +0200 Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > There are UAF bugs caused by rose_t0timer_expiry(). The > > root cause is that del_timer() could not stop the timer > > handler that is running and there is no synchronization. > > One of the race conditions is shown below: > > > > (thread 1) | (thread 2) > > | rose_device_event > > | rose_rt_device_down > > | rose_remove_neigh > > rose_t0timer_expiry | rose_stop_t0timer(rose_neigh) > > ... | del_timer(&neigh->t0timer) > > | kfree(rose_neigh) //[1]FREE > > neigh->dce_mode //[2]USE | > > > > The rose_neigh is deallocated in position [1] and use in > > position [2]. > > > > The crash trace triggered by POC is like below: > > > > BUG: KASAN: use-after-free in expire_timers+0x144/0x320 > > Write of size 8 at addr ffff888009b19658 by task swapper/0/0 > > ... > > Call Trace: > > <IRQ> > > dump_stack_lvl+0xbf/0xee > > print_address_description+0x7b/0x440 > > print_report+0x101/0x230 > > ? expire_timers+0x144/0x320 > > kasan_report+0xed/0x120 > > ? expire_timers+0x144/0x320 > > expire_timers+0x144/0x320 > > __run_timers+0x3ff/0x4d0 > > run_timer_softirq+0x41/0x80 > > __do_softirq+0x233/0x544 > > ... > > > > This patch changes del_timer() in rose_stop_t0timer() and > > rose_stop_ftimer() to del_timer_sync() in order that the > > timer handler could be finished before the resources such as > > rose_neigh and so on are deallocated. As a result, the UAF > > bugs could be mitigated. > > > > Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2") > > Signed-off-by: Duoming Zhou <duoming@zju.edu.cn> > > --- > > net/rose/rose_link.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/net/rose/rose_link.c b/net/rose/rose_link.c > > index 8b96a56d3a4..9734d1264de 100644 > > --- a/net/rose/rose_link.c > > +++ b/net/rose/rose_link.c > > @@ -54,12 +54,12 @@ static void rose_start_t0timer(struct rose_neigh *neigh) > > > > void rose_stop_ftimer(struct rose_neigh *neigh) > > { > > - del_timer(&neigh->ftimer); > > + del_timer_sync(&neigh->ftimer); > > } > > Are you sure this is safe ? > > del_timer_sync() could hang if the caller holds a lock that the timer > function would need to acquire.
I think this is safe. The rose_ftimer_expiry() is an empty function that is shown below:
static void rose_ftimer_expiry(struct timer_list *t) { }
> > > > void rose_stop_t0timer(struct rose_neigh *neigh) > > { > > - del_timer(&neigh->t0timer); > > + del_timer_sync(&neigh->t0timer); > > } > > Same here, please explain why it is safe.
The rose_stop_t0timer() may hold "rose_node_list_lock" and "rose_neigh_list_lock", but the timer handler rose_t0timer_expiry() that is shown below does not need these two locks.
static void rose_t0timer_expiry(struct timer_list *t) { struct rose_neigh *neigh = from_timer(neigh, t, t0timer);
rose_transmit_restart_request(neigh);
neigh->dce_mode = 0;
rose_start_t0timer(neigh); }
Best regards, Duoming Zhou | |