Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 13 Jul 2022 17:03:27 +0800 (GMT+08:00) | From | duoming@zju ... | Subject | Re: [PATCH net v6] net: rose: fix null-ptr-deref caused by rose_kill_by_neigh |
| |
Hello,
On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 10:33:54 +0200 Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2022-07-11 at 09:31 +0800, Duoming Zhou wrote: > > > > When the link layer connection is broken, the rose->neighbour is > > > > set to null. But rose->neighbour could be used by rose_connection() > > > > and rose_release() later, because there is no synchronization among > > > > them. As a result, the null-ptr-deref bugs will happen. > > > > > > > > One of the null-ptr-deref bugs is shown below: > > > > > > > > (thread 1) | (thread 2) > > > > | rose_connect > > > > rose_kill_by_neigh | lock_sock(sk) > > > > spin_lock_bh(&rose_list_lock) | if (!rose->neighbour) > > > > rose->neighbour = NULL;//(1) | > > > > | rose->neighbour->use++;//(2) > > > > > > > > The rose->neighbour is set to null in position (1) and dereferenced > > > > in position (2). > > > > > > > > The KASAN report triggered by POC is shown below: > > > > > > > > KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x0000000000000028-0x000000000000002f] > > > > ... > > > > RIP: 0010:rose_connect+0x6c2/0xf30 > > > > RSP: 0018:ffff88800ab47d60 EFLAGS: 00000206 > > > > RAX: 0000000000000005 RBX: 000000000000002a RCX: 0000000000000000 > > > > RDX: ffff88800ab38000 RSI: ffff88800ab47e48 RDI: ffff88800ab38309 > > > > RBP: dffffc0000000000 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: ffffed1001567062 > > > > R10: dfffe91001567063 R11: 1ffff11001567061 R12: 1ffff11000d17cd0 > > > > R13: ffff8880068be680 R14: 0000000000000002 R15: 1ffff11000d17cd0 > > > > ... > > > > Call Trace: > > > > <TASK> > > > > ? __local_bh_enable_ip+0x54/0x80 > > > > ? selinux_netlbl_socket_connect+0x26/0x30 > > > > ? rose_bind+0x5b0/0x5b0 > > > > __sys_connect+0x216/0x280 > > > > __x64_sys_connect+0x71/0x80 > > > > do_syscall_64+0x43/0x90 > > > > entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x46/0xb0 > > > > > > > > This patch adds lock_sock() in rose_kill_by_neigh() in order to > > > > synchronize with rose_connect() and rose_release(). Then, changing > > > > type of 'neighbour->use' from unsigned short to atomic_t in order to > > > > mitigate race conditions caused by holding different socket lock while > > > > updating 'neighbour->use'. > > > > > > > > Meanwhile, this patch adds sock_hold() protected by rose_list_lock > > > > that could synchronize with rose_remove_socket() in order to mitigate > > > > UAF bug caused by lock_sock() we add. > > > > > > > > What's more, there is no need using rose_neigh_list_lock to protect > > > > rose_kill_by_neigh(). Because we have already used rose_neigh_list_lock > > > > to protect the state change of rose_neigh in rose_link_failed(), which > > > > is well synchronized. > > > > > > > > Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2") > > > > Signed-off-by: Duoming Zhou <duoming@zju.edu.cn> > > > > --- > > > > Changes in v6: > > > > - Change sk_for_each() to sk_for_each_safe(). > > > > - Change type of 'neighbour->use' from unsigned short to atomic_t. > > > > > > > > include/net/rose.h | 2 +- > > > > net/rose/af_rose.c | 19 +++++++++++++------ > > > > net/rose/rose_in.c | 12 ++++++------ > > > > net/rose/rose_route.c | 24 ++++++++++++------------ > > > > net/rose/rose_timer.c | 2 +- > > > > 5 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/include/net/rose.h b/include/net/rose.h > > > > index 0f0a4ce0fee..d5ddebc556d 100644 > > > > --- a/include/net/rose.h > > > > +++ b/include/net/rose.h > > > > @@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ struct rose_neigh { > > > > ax25_cb *ax25; > > > > struct net_device *dev; > > > > unsigned short count; > > > > - unsigned short use; > > > > + atomic_t use; > > > > unsigned int number; > > > > char restarted; > > > > char dce_mode; > > > > diff --git a/net/rose/af_rose.c b/net/rose/af_rose.c > > > > index bf2d986a6bc..54e7b76c4f3 100644 > > > > --- a/net/rose/af_rose.c > > > > +++ b/net/rose/af_rose.c > > > > @@ -163,16 +163,23 @@ static void rose_remove_socket(struct sock *sk) > > > > void rose_kill_by_neigh(struct rose_neigh *neigh) > > > > { > > > > struct sock *s; > > > > + struct hlist_node *tmp; > > > > > > > > spin_lock_bh(&rose_list_lock); > > > > - sk_for_each(s, &rose_list) { > > > > + sk_for_each_safe(s, tmp, &rose_list) { > > > > struct rose_sock *rose = rose_sk(s); > > > > > > > > + sock_hold(s); > > > > + spin_unlock_bh(&rose_list_lock); > > > > + lock_sock(s); > > > > if (rose->neighbour == neigh) { > > > > rose_disconnect(s, ENETUNREACH, ROSE_OUT_OF_ORDER, 0); > > > > - rose->neighbour->use--; > > > > + atomic_dec(&rose->neighbour->use); > > > > rose->neighbour = NULL; > > > > } > > > > + release_sock(s); > > > > + sock_put(s); > > > > > > I'm sorry, this does not work. At this point both 's' and 'tmp' sockets > > > can be freed and reused. Both iterators are not valid anymore when you > > > acquire the 'rose_list_lock' later. > > > > Thank you for your time and reply! But I think both 's' and 'tmp' can not > > be freed and reused in rose_kill_by_neigh(). Because rose_remove_socket() > > calls sk_del_node_init() which is protected by rose_list_lock to delete the > > socket node from the hlist and if sk->sk_refcnt equals to 1, the socket will > > be deallocated. > > > > static void rose_remove_socket(struct sock *sk) > > { > > spin_lock_bh(&rose_list_lock); > > sk_del_node_init(sk); > > spin_unlock_bh(&rose_list_lock); > > } > > > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.19-rc6/source/net/rose/af_rose.c#L152 > > > > Both 's' and 'tmp' in rose_kill_by_neigh() is also protected by rose_list_lock. > > The above loop explicitly releases the rose_list_lock at each > iteration. Additionally, the reference count to 's' is released before > re-acquiring such lock. By the time rose_list_lock is re-acquired, some > other process could have removed from the list both 's' and 'tmp' and > even de-allocate them. > > Moving the 'sock_put(s);' after re-acquiring the rose_list_lock could > protect from 's' being de-allocated, but can't protect from 'tmp' being > deallocated, neither from 's' and 'tmp' being removed from the list. > > The above code is not safe.
I understand, I will improve the code , thank you!
Best regards, Duoming Zhou | |