Re: [PATCH] net/nfc: fix use-after-free llcp_sock_bind/connect
From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
Date: 2021-05-05 14:17:29
On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 04:36:05PM +0300, Nadav Markus wrote:
On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 2:40 PM Leon Romanovsky [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 12:35:48PM +0300, Nadav Markus wrote:quoted
On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 7:46 AM Leon Romanovsky [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 07:01:01PM +0300, Or Cohen wrote:quoted
Hi, can you please elaborate? We don't understand why using kref_get_unless_zero will solve theproblem. Please don't reply in top-posting format. ------ The rationale behind _put()/_get() wrappers over kref is to allow delayed release after all consumers are gone. In order to make it happen, the developer should ensure that consumers don't have an access to the kref-ed struct. This is done with kref_get_unless_zero(). In your case, you simply increment some counter without checking if nfc_llcp_local_get() actually succeeded.Hi Leon - as far as we understand, the underlying issue is notincrementingquoted
quoted
the kref counter without checking if the function nfc_llcp_local_get succeeded or not. The function itself increments the reference count. The issue is that the nfc_llcp_local_put might be called twice on the llcp_sock->local field, however only one reference (the one that wasgottenquoted
quoted
via nfc_llcp_local_get) is incremented. llcp_local_put will be called in two locations. The first one is just inside the bind function, if nfc_llcp_get_local_ssap fails. The second one is calledunconditionally, atquoted
quoted
the socket destruction, at the function nfc_llcp_sock_free. Hence, our proposed solution is to prevent the second nfc_llcp_local_put from attempting to decrement the kref count, by setting local to NULL.Thisquoted
quoted
makes sense, as we immediately do so after decrementing the single ref count we took when calling nfc_llcp_local_get. Since we are under thesockquoted
quoted
lock, this also should be race safe, as no one should access the llcp_sock->local field without this lock's protection.quoted
For example, what protection do you have from races between llcp_sock_bind(), nfc_llcp_sock_free() and llcp_sock_connect()?As we replied, the llcp_sock->local field is protected under the locksock,quoted
quoted
as far as we understand.quoted
So in case you have some lock outside, it is unclear howuse-after-freequoted
quoted
quoted
is possible, because nfc_llcp_find_local() should return NULL. In case, no lock exists, except reducing race window, you didn't fix anything and didn't sanitize lcp_sock too.We don't quite get what race are we talking about here - our trigger program doesn't even utilize threads. All it has to do is to cause nfc_llcp_local_get to fail - this can be seen clearly in ouroriginalquoted
quoted
trigger program. To clarify, the two sockets that are created therepointquoted
quoted
to the same nfc_llcp_local struct (via their local field). Thedestructionquoted
quoted
of the first socket causes the reference count of the pointed object to drop to zero (since the code increments the ref count of the objectfrom 1quoted
quoted
to 2, but dercements it twice). The second socket later attempts to decrement the ref count of the same (already freed) nfc_llcp_localobject,quoted
quoted
causing a kernel crash.So at the end, we are talking about situation where _get()/_put() are protected by the lock and local can't disappear. Can you please help meto findquoted
this socket lock? Did I miss it in bind path?The lock we are talking about is the lock_sock - lock_sock(sk). It appears near the start of the function.quoted
net/socket.c: int __sys_bind(int fd, struct sockaddr __user *umyaddr, int addrlen) sock->ops->bind(..) llcp_sock_bind(..) And if we put lock issue aside, all your change can be squeezed to thefollowing:quoted
diff --git a/net/nfc/llcp_sock.c b/net/nfc/llcp_sock.c index a3b46f888803..cc9ee634269d 100644 --- a/net/nfc/llcp_sock.c +++ b/net/nfc/llcp_sock.c@@ -99,7 +99,6 @@ static int llcp_sock_bind(struct socket *sock, structsockaddr *addr, int alen)quoted
} llcp_sock->dev = dev; - llcp_sock->local = nfc_llcp_local_get(local); llcp_sock->nfc_protocol = llcp_addr.nfc_protocol; llcp_sock->service_name_len = min_t(unsigned int, llcp_addr.service_name_len,@@ -108,13 +107,11 @@ static int llcp_sock_bind(struct socket *sock,struct sockaddr *addr, int alen)quoted
llcp_sock->service_name_len, GFP_KERNEL); if (!llcp_sock->service_name) { - nfc_llcp_local_put(llcp_sock->local); ret = -ENOMEM; goto put_dev; } llcp_sock->ssap = nfc_llcp_get_sdp_ssap(local, llcp_sock); if (llcp_sock->ssap == LLCP_SAP_MAX) { - nfc_llcp_local_put(llcp_sock->local); kfree(llcp_sock->service_name); llcp_sock->service_name = NULL; ret = -EADDRINUSE;@@ -122,6 +119,7 @@ static int llcp_sock_bind(struct socket *sock, structsockaddr *addr, int alen)quoted
} llcp_sock->reserved_ssap = llcp_sock->ssap; + llcp_sock->local = nfc_llcp_local_get(local); nfc_llcp_sock_link(&local->sockets, sk); ThanksWhile your suggested fix will work for the bind path (it implicitly makes sure that the 'local' field is always NULL, up until the point that everything is initialized properly), we have a problem in the 'connect' path.
It is a mess.
If we try to take the same approach inside the function llcp_sock_connect, there is a call to nfc_llcp_send_connect, which requires the local field to be set inside the socket. We thought about changing its interface to just accept the 'local' as an argument, but this function is exported in the .h file, and we are afraid of breaking external interfaces. Therefore, we think that we should take a consistent approach of explicitly setting the local field to NULL in all paths. Note that this explicit assignment should achieve the same result as your approach, of implicitly letting it stay NULL up until we can safely assign to it. Please let us know WDYT.
It is in-kernel API with only one user, I would personally use that opportunity and cleaned nfc_llcp_send_connect() from ridiculous checks. This is always false: 401 local = sock->local; 402 if (local == NULL) Always true: 405 if (sock->service_name != NULL) However the more I look on that code the more I come to the conclusion that it is not worth to change it. Thanks