Hello,

On Tue, 05 Jul 2022 10:43:44 +0200 pabeni@redhat.com wrote:

On Sat, 2022-07-02 at 15:57 +0800, Duoming Zhou wrote:

quoted

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().

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 <redacted>
---
Changes in v5:
  - v5: Use socket lock to protect comparison in rose_kill_by_neigh.

 net/rose/af_rose.c    | 12 ++++++++++++
 net/rose/rose_route.c |  2 ++
 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+)

diff --git a/net/rose/af_rose.c b/net/rose/af_rose.c
index bf2d986a6bc..6d5088b030a 100644
--- a/net/rose/af_rose.c
+++ b/net/rose/af_rose.c

@@ -165,14 +165,26 @@ void rose_kill_by_neigh(struct rose_neigh *neigh)
 	struct sock *s;
 
 	spin_lock_bh(&rose_list_lock);
+again:
 	sk_for_each(s, &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--;

I am sorry for the delay.

Note that the code can held different socket lock while updating
'neighbour->use'. That really means that such updates can really race
each other, with bad results.

Thank you for your time and suggestions! I agree with you and I will improve
this patch.

I think the only safe way out is using an atomic_t for 'neighbour->use'
(likely a refcount_t would be a better option).

I will use refcount_t to manage the 'neighbour->use'.

All the above deserves a separate patch IMHO.

quoted

 			rose->neighbour = NULL;
+			release_sock(s);
+			sock_put(s);
+			spin_lock_bh(&rose_list_lock);
+			goto again;

This chunk is dup of the following lines, it could be dropped...

quoted

 		}
+		release_sock(s);
+		sock_put(s);
+		spin_lock_bh(&rose_list_lock);
+		goto again;

... if this would be correct, which apparently is not.

What happens when 'rose->neighbour' is different from 'neigh' for first
socket in rose_list?

I understand. If the 'rose->neighbour' is different from 'neigh' for the first socket
in the rose_list, the code will goto again and re-search the list. This will cause
infinite loop. I will improve this.

Best regards,
Duoming Zhou