Thread (5 messages) flat view 5 messages, 3 authors, 2021-08-28

Re: CVE-2021-3640 and the unlimited block of lock_sock()

From: Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@gmail.com>
Date: 2021-08-27 01:28:24
Also in: lkml

Hi Takashi,

On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 3:29 AM Takashi Iwai [off-list ref] wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2021 17:46:39 +0200,
Takashi Iwai wrote:
quoted
Hi,

it seems that the recent fixes in bluetooth tree address most of
issues in CVE-2021-3640 ("Use-After-Free vulnerability in function
sco_sock_sendmsg()").  But there is still a problem left: although we
cover the race with lock_sock() now, the lock may be blocked endlessly
(as the task takes over with userfaultd), which result in the trigger
of watchdog like:

-- 8< --
[   23.226767][    T7] Bluetooth: hci0: command 0x0419 tx timeout
[  284.985881][ T1529] INFO: task poc:7603 blocked for more than 143 seconds.
[  284.989134][ T1529]       Not tainted 5.13.0-rc4+ #48
[  284.990098][ T1529] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
[  284.991705][ T1529] task:poc             state:D stack:13784 pid: 7603 ppid:  7593 flags:0x00000000
[  284.993414][ T1529] Call Trace:
[  284.994025][ T1529]  __schedule+0x32e/0xb90
[  284.994842][ T1529]  ? __local_bh_enable_ip+0x72/0xe0
[  284.995987][ T1529]  schedule+0x38/0xe0
[  284.996723][ T1529]  __lock_sock+0xa1/0x130
[  284.997434][ T1529]  ? finish_wait+0x80/0x80
[  284.998150][ T1529]  lock_sock_nested+0x9f/0xb0
[  284.998914][ T1529]  sco_conn_del+0xb1/0x1a0
[  284.999619][ T1529]  ? sco_conn_del+0x1a0/0x1a0
[  285.000361][ T1529]  sco_disconn_cfm+0x3a/0x60
[  285.001116][ T1529]  hci_conn_hash_flush+0x95/0x130
[  285.001921][ T1529]  hci_dev_do_close+0x298/0x680
[  285.002687][ T1529]  ? up_write+0x12/0x130
[  285.003367][ T1529]  ? vhci_close_dev+0x20/0x20
[  285.004107][ T1529]  hci_unregister_dev+0x9f/0x240
[  285.004886][ T1529]  vhci_release+0x35/0x70
[  285.005602][ T1529]  __fput+0xdf/0x360
[  285.006225][ T1529]  task_work_run+0x86/0xd0
[  285.006927][ T1529]  exit_to_user_mode_prepare+0x267/0x270
[  285.007824][ T1529]  syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x19/0x60
[  285.008694][ T1529]  do_syscall_64+0x42/0xa0
[  285.009393][ T1529]  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
[  285.010321][ T1529] RIP: 0033:0x4065c7
-- 8< --

Is there any plan to address this?

As a quick hack, I confirmed a workaround like below:

-- 8< --
--- a/net/core/sock.c
+++ b/net/core/sock.c
@@ -2628,7 +2628,7 @@ void __lock_sock(struct sock *sk)
              prepare_to_wait_exclusive(&sk->sk_lock.wq, &wait,
                                      TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
              spin_unlock_bh(&sk->sk_lock.slock);
-             schedule();
+             schedule_timeout(msecs_to_jiffies(10 * 1000));
              spin_lock_bh(&sk->sk_lock.slock);
              if (!sock_owned_by_user(sk))
                      break;
-- 8< --
.... but I'm not sure whether it's the right way to go.
Does anyone has an idea?
It seems that we need to rework some code so the functions affected by
userfaultfd are not used with sock_lock held.

-- 
Luiz Augusto von Dentz
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help