lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Jan]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] drm/nouveau/mmu: fix Use after Free bug in nvkm_vmm_node_split
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 03:17:15 +0100,
Danilo Krummrich wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 01:10:46PM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 15:07:55 +0100,
> > Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 08:27:58 +0100,
> > > Zheng Wang wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Here is a function call chain.
> > > > nvkm_vmm_pfn_map->nvkm_vmm_pfn_split_merge->nvkm_vmm_node_split
> > > > If nvkm_vma_tail return NULL in nvkm_vmm_node_split, it will
> > > > finally invoke nvkm_vmm_node_merge->nvkm_vmm_node_delete, which
> > > > will free the vma. However, nvkm_vmm_pfn_map didn't notice that.
> > > > It goes into next label and UAF happens.
> > > >
> > > > Fix it by returning the return-value of nvkm_vmm_node_merge
> > > > instead of NULL.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Zheng Wang <zyytlz.wz@163.com>
> > >
> > > FWIW, CVE-2023-0030 has been assigned to this bug.
> > > It's a question whether it really deserves as a security issue, but a
> > > bug is a bug...
> > >
> > > Ben, could you review this please?
> >
> > A gentle ping as reminder. The bug is still present.
>
> This was also reported in [1]. I had a closer look and FWICT this code is fine
> and there isn't a bug.
>
> Zheng Wang, the reporter of the BZ, also confirmed this to be a false positive
> from CodeQL.
>
> Anyway, here's the explaination I also posted in the BZ:
>
> "In nvkm_vmm_node_merge() nvkm_vmm_node_delete() is only called when prev is
> set. However, prev is NULL unless we enter the "if (vma->addr != addr)" path in
> nvkm_vmm_node_split(). In such a case the vma pointer, which is also passed to
> nvkm_vmm_node_merge(), is set to a freshly allocated struct nvkm_vma with
> nvkm_vma_tail() right before prev is set to the old vma pointer.
>
> Hence, the only thing happening there when nvkm_vma_tail() fails in the
> "if (vma->size != size)" path is that either nvkm_vmm_node_merge() does nothing
> in case prev wasn't set or it merges and frees the new vma created in the
> "if (vma->addr != addr)" path. Or in other words the proper cleanup for the
> error condition is done.
>
> I can't see any case where the original vma pointer given by nvkm_vmm_pfn_map()
> is actually freed."
>
> [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2157041

Thanks for the information! Then we should try to dispute the CVE.
I'll ask our security team.


Takashi

>
> - Danilo
>
> >
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > Takashi
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > >
> > > Takashi
> > >
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/mmu/vmm.c | 4 ++--
> > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/mmu/vmm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/mmu/vmm.c
> > > > index ae793f400ba1..84d6fc87b2e8 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/mmu/vmm.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/mmu/vmm.c
> > > > @@ -937,8 +937,8 @@ nvkm_vmm_node_split(struct nvkm_vmm *vmm,
> > > > if (vma->size != size) {
> > > > struct nvkm_vma *tmp;
> > > > if (!(tmp = nvkm_vma_tail(vma, vma->size - size))) {
> > > > - nvkm_vmm_node_merge(vmm, prev, vma, NULL, vma->size);
> > > > - return NULL;
> > > > + tmp = nvkm_vmm_node_merge(vmm, prev, vma, NULL, vma->size);
> > > > + return tmp;
> > > > }
> > > > tmp->part = true;
> > > > nvkm_vmm_node_insert(vmm, tmp);
> > > > --
> > > > 2.25.1
> > > >
> >
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-27 00:00    [W:0.038 / U:0.180 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site