* [PATCH net] net: rose: fix UAF bug caused by rose_t0timer_expiry
@ 2022-06-30 14:38 Duoming Zhou
2022-06-30 14:44 ` Eric Dumazet
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Duoming Zhou @ 2022-06-30 14:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-hams
Cc: netdev, linux-kernel, pabeni, kuba, edumazet, davem, ralf, Duoming Zhou
There are UAF bugs caused by rose_t0timer_expiry(). The
root cause is that del_timer() could not stop the timer
handler that is running and there is no synchronization.
One of the race conditions is shown below:
(thread 1) | (thread 2)
| rose_device_event
| rose_rt_device_down
| rose_remove_neigh
rose_t0timer_expiry | rose_stop_t0timer(rose_neigh)
... | del_timer(&neigh->t0timer)
| kfree(rose_neigh) //[1]FREE
neigh->dce_mode //[2]USE |
The rose_neigh is deallocated in position [1] and use in
position [2].
The crash trace triggered by POC is like below:
BUG: KASAN: use-after-free in expire_timers+0x144/0x320
Write of size 8 at addr ffff888009b19658 by task swapper/0/0
...
Call Trace:
<IRQ>
dump_stack_lvl+0xbf/0xee
print_address_description+0x7b/0x440
print_report+0x101/0x230
? expire_timers+0x144/0x320
kasan_report+0xed/0x120
? expire_timers+0x144/0x320
expire_timers+0x144/0x320
__run_timers+0x3ff/0x4d0
run_timer_softirq+0x41/0x80
__do_softirq+0x233/0x544
...
This patch changes del_timer() in rose_stop_t0timer() and
rose_stop_ftimer() to del_timer_sync() in order that the
timer handler could be finished before the resources such as
rose_neigh and so on are deallocated. As a result, the UAF
bugs could be mitigated.
Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
Signed-off-by: Duoming Zhou <duoming@zju.edu.cn>
---
net/rose/rose_link.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/rose/rose_link.c b/net/rose/rose_link.c
index 8b96a56d3a4..9734d1264de 100644
--- a/net/rose/rose_link.c
+++ b/net/rose/rose_link.c
@@ -54,12 +54,12 @@ static void rose_start_t0timer(struct rose_neigh *neigh)
void rose_stop_ftimer(struct rose_neigh *neigh)
{
- del_timer(&neigh->ftimer);
+ del_timer_sync(&neigh->ftimer);
}
void rose_stop_t0timer(struct rose_neigh *neigh)
{
- del_timer(&neigh->t0timer);
+ del_timer_sync(&neigh->t0timer);
}
int rose_ftimer_running(struct rose_neigh *neigh)
--
2.17.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net] net: rose: fix UAF bug caused by rose_t0timer_expiry
2022-06-30 14:38 [PATCH net] net: rose: fix UAF bug caused by rose_t0timer_expiry Duoming Zhou
@ 2022-06-30 14:44 ` Eric Dumazet
2022-06-30 15:08 ` duoming
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Eric Dumazet @ 2022-06-30 14:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Duoming Zhou
Cc: linux-hams, netdev, LKML, Paolo Abeni, Jakub Kicinski,
David Miller, Ralf Baechle
On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 4:38 PM Duoming Zhou <duoming@zju.edu.cn> wrote:
>
> There are UAF bugs caused by rose_t0timer_expiry(). The
> root cause is that del_timer() could not stop the timer
> handler that is running and there is no synchronization.
> One of the race conditions is shown below:
>
> (thread 1) | (thread 2)
> | rose_device_event
> | rose_rt_device_down
> | rose_remove_neigh
> rose_t0timer_expiry | rose_stop_t0timer(rose_neigh)
> ... | del_timer(&neigh->t0timer)
> | kfree(rose_neigh) //[1]FREE
> neigh->dce_mode //[2]USE |
>
> The rose_neigh is deallocated in position [1] and use in
> position [2].
>
> The crash trace triggered by POC is like below:
>
> BUG: KASAN: use-after-free in expire_timers+0x144/0x320
> Write of size 8 at addr ffff888009b19658 by task swapper/0/0
> ...
> Call Trace:
> <IRQ>
> dump_stack_lvl+0xbf/0xee
> print_address_description+0x7b/0x440
> print_report+0x101/0x230
> ? expire_timers+0x144/0x320
> kasan_report+0xed/0x120
> ? expire_timers+0x144/0x320
> expire_timers+0x144/0x320
> __run_timers+0x3ff/0x4d0
> run_timer_softirq+0x41/0x80
> __do_softirq+0x233/0x544
> ...
>
> This patch changes del_timer() in rose_stop_t0timer() and
> rose_stop_ftimer() to del_timer_sync() in order that the
> timer handler could be finished before the resources such as
> rose_neigh and so on are deallocated. As a result, the UAF
> bugs could be mitigated.
>
> Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
> Signed-off-by: Duoming Zhou <duoming@zju.edu.cn>
> ---
> net/rose/rose_link.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/rose/rose_link.c b/net/rose/rose_link.c
> index 8b96a56d3a4..9734d1264de 100644
> --- a/net/rose/rose_link.c
> +++ b/net/rose/rose_link.c
> @@ -54,12 +54,12 @@ static void rose_start_t0timer(struct rose_neigh *neigh)
>
> void rose_stop_ftimer(struct rose_neigh *neigh)
> {
> - del_timer(&neigh->ftimer);
> + del_timer_sync(&neigh->ftimer);
> }
Are you sure this is safe ?
del_timer_sync() could hang if the caller holds a lock that the timer
function would need to acquire.
>
> void rose_stop_t0timer(struct rose_neigh *neigh)
> {
> - del_timer(&neigh->t0timer);
> + del_timer_sync(&neigh->t0timer);
> }
Same here, please explain why it is safe.
>
> int rose_ftimer_running(struct rose_neigh *neigh)
> --
> 2.17.1
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net] net: rose: fix UAF bug caused by rose_t0timer_expiry
2022-06-30 14:44 ` Eric Dumazet
@ 2022-06-30 15:08 ` duoming
2022-06-30 15:17 ` Eric Dumazet
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: duoming @ 2022-06-30 15:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Dumazet
Cc: linux-hams, netdev, LKML, Paolo Abeni, Jakub Kicinski,
David Miller, Ralf Baechle
Hello,
On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 16:44:29 +0200 Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > There are UAF bugs caused by rose_t0timer_expiry(). The
> > root cause is that del_timer() could not stop the timer
> > handler that is running and there is no synchronization.
> > One of the race conditions is shown below:
> >
> > (thread 1) | (thread 2)
> > | rose_device_event
> > | rose_rt_device_down
> > | rose_remove_neigh
> > rose_t0timer_expiry | rose_stop_t0timer(rose_neigh)
> > ... | del_timer(&neigh->t0timer)
> > | kfree(rose_neigh) //[1]FREE
> > neigh->dce_mode //[2]USE |
> >
> > The rose_neigh is deallocated in position [1] and use in
> > position [2].
> >
> > The crash trace triggered by POC is like below:
> >
> > BUG: KASAN: use-after-free in expire_timers+0x144/0x320
> > Write of size 8 at addr ffff888009b19658 by task swapper/0/0
> > ...
> > Call Trace:
> > <IRQ>
> > dump_stack_lvl+0xbf/0xee
> > print_address_description+0x7b/0x440
> > print_report+0x101/0x230
> > ? expire_timers+0x144/0x320
> > kasan_report+0xed/0x120
> > ? expire_timers+0x144/0x320
> > expire_timers+0x144/0x320
> > __run_timers+0x3ff/0x4d0
> > run_timer_softirq+0x41/0x80
> > __do_softirq+0x233/0x544
> > ...
> >
> > This patch changes del_timer() in rose_stop_t0timer() and
> > rose_stop_ftimer() to del_timer_sync() in order that the
> > timer handler could be finished before the resources such as
> > rose_neigh and so on are deallocated. As a result, the UAF
> > bugs could be mitigated.
> >
> > Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
> > Signed-off-by: Duoming Zhou <duoming@zju.edu.cn>
> > ---
> > net/rose/rose_link.c | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/rose/rose_link.c b/net/rose/rose_link.c
> > index 8b96a56d3a4..9734d1264de 100644
> > --- a/net/rose/rose_link.c
> > +++ b/net/rose/rose_link.c
> > @@ -54,12 +54,12 @@ static void rose_start_t0timer(struct rose_neigh *neigh)
> >
> > void rose_stop_ftimer(struct rose_neigh *neigh)
> > {
> > - del_timer(&neigh->ftimer);
> > + del_timer_sync(&neigh->ftimer);
> > }
>
> Are you sure this is safe ?
>
> del_timer_sync() could hang if the caller holds a lock that the timer
> function would need to acquire.
I think this is safe. The rose_ftimer_expiry() is an empty function that is
shown below:
static void rose_ftimer_expiry(struct timer_list *t)
{
}
> >
> > void rose_stop_t0timer(struct rose_neigh *neigh)
> > {
> > - del_timer(&neigh->t0timer);
> > + del_timer_sync(&neigh->t0timer);
> > }
>
> Same here, please explain why it is safe.
The rose_stop_t0timer() may hold "rose_node_list_lock" and "rose_neigh_list_lock",
but the timer handler rose_t0timer_expiry() that is shown below does not need
these two locks.
static void rose_t0timer_expiry(struct timer_list *t)
{
struct rose_neigh *neigh = from_timer(neigh, t, t0timer);
rose_transmit_restart_request(neigh);
neigh->dce_mode = 0;
rose_start_t0timer(neigh);
}
Best regards,
Duoming Zhou
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net] net: rose: fix UAF bug caused by rose_t0timer_expiry
2022-06-30 15:08 ` duoming
@ 2022-06-30 15:17 ` Eric Dumazet
2022-06-30 15:51 ` duoming
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Eric Dumazet @ 2022-06-30 15:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Duoming Zhou
Cc: linux-hams, netdev, LKML, Paolo Abeni, Jakub Kicinski,
David Miller, Ralf Baechle
On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 5:08 PM <duoming@zju.edu.cn> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 16:44:29 +0200 Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> > > There are UAF bugs caused by rose_t0timer_expiry(). The
> > > root cause is that del_timer() could not stop the timer
> > > handler that is running and there is no synchronization.
> > > One of the race conditions is shown below:
> > >
> > > (thread 1) | (thread 2)
> > > | rose_device_event
> > > | rose_rt_device_down
> > > | rose_remove_neigh
> > > rose_t0timer_expiry | rose_stop_t0timer(rose_neigh)
> > > ... | del_timer(&neigh->t0timer)
> > > | kfree(rose_neigh) //[1]FREE
> > > neigh->dce_mode //[2]USE |
> > >
> > > The rose_neigh is deallocated in position [1] and use in
> > > position [2].
> > >
> > > The crash trace triggered by POC is like below:
> > >
> > > BUG: KASAN: use-after-free in expire_timers+0x144/0x320
> > > Write of size 8 at addr ffff888009b19658 by task swapper/0/0
> > > ...
> > > Call Trace:
> > > <IRQ>
> > > dump_stack_lvl+0xbf/0xee
> > > print_address_description+0x7b/0x440
> > > print_report+0x101/0x230
> > > ? expire_timers+0x144/0x320
> > > kasan_report+0xed/0x120
> > > ? expire_timers+0x144/0x320
> > > expire_timers+0x144/0x320
> > > __run_timers+0x3ff/0x4d0
> > > run_timer_softirq+0x41/0x80
> > > __do_softirq+0x233/0x544
> > > ...
> > >
> > > This patch changes del_timer() in rose_stop_t0timer() and
> > > rose_stop_ftimer() to del_timer_sync() in order that the
> > > timer handler could be finished before the resources such as
> > > rose_neigh and so on are deallocated. As a result, the UAF
> > > bugs could be mitigated.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
> > > Signed-off-by: Duoming Zhou <duoming@zju.edu.cn>
> > > ---
> > > net/rose/rose_link.c | 4 ++--
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/net/rose/rose_link.c b/net/rose/rose_link.c
> > > index 8b96a56d3a4..9734d1264de 100644
> > > --- a/net/rose/rose_link.c
> > > +++ b/net/rose/rose_link.c
> > > @@ -54,12 +54,12 @@ static void rose_start_t0timer(struct rose_neigh *neigh)
> > >
> > > void rose_stop_ftimer(struct rose_neigh *neigh)
> > > {
> > > - del_timer(&neigh->ftimer);
> > > + del_timer_sync(&neigh->ftimer);
> > > }
> >
> > Are you sure this is safe ?
> >
> > del_timer_sync() could hang if the caller holds a lock that the timer
> > function would need to acquire.
>
> I think this is safe. The rose_ftimer_expiry() is an empty function that is
> shown below:
>
> static void rose_ftimer_expiry(struct timer_list *t)
> {
> }
>
> > >
> > > void rose_stop_t0timer(struct rose_neigh *neigh)
> > > {
> > > - del_timer(&neigh->t0timer);
> > > + del_timer_sync(&neigh->t0timer);
> > > }
> >
> > Same here, please explain why it is safe.
>
> The rose_stop_t0timer() may hold "rose_node_list_lock" and "rose_neigh_list_lock",
> but the timer handler rose_t0timer_expiry() that is shown below does not need
> these two locks.
>
> static void rose_t0timer_expiry(struct timer_list *t)
> {
> struct rose_neigh *neigh = from_timer(neigh, t, t0timer);
>
> rose_transmit_restart_request(neigh);
>
> neigh->dce_mode = 0;
>
> rose_start_t0timer(neigh);
This will rearm the timer. del_timer_sync() will not help.
Please read the comment in front of del_timer_sync(), in kernel/time/timer.c
> }
>
> Best regards,
> Duoming Zhou
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net] net: rose: fix UAF bug caused by rose_t0timer_expiry
2022-06-30 15:17 ` Eric Dumazet
@ 2022-06-30 15:51 ` duoming
2022-06-30 16:07 ` Eric Dumazet
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: duoming @ 2022-06-30 15:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Dumazet
Cc: linux-hams, netdev, LKML, Paolo Abeni, Jakub Kicinski,
David Miller, Ralf Baechle
Hello,
On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 17:17:10 +0200 Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > > There are UAF bugs caused by rose_t0timer_expiry(). The
> > > > root cause is that del_timer() could not stop the timer
> > > > handler that is running and there is no synchronization.
> > > > One of the race conditions is shown below:
> > > >
> > > > (thread 1) | (thread 2)
> > > > | rose_device_event
> > > > | rose_rt_device_down
> > > > | rose_remove_neigh
> > > > rose_t0timer_expiry | rose_stop_t0timer(rose_neigh)
> > > > ... | del_timer(&neigh->t0timer)
> > > > | kfree(rose_neigh) //[1]FREE
> > > > neigh->dce_mode //[2]USE |
> > > >
> > > > The rose_neigh is deallocated in position [1] and use in
> > > > position [2].
> > > >
> > > > The crash trace triggered by POC is like below:
> > > >
> > > > BUG: KASAN: use-after-free in expire_timers+0x144/0x320
> > > > Write of size 8 at addr ffff888009b19658 by task swapper/0/0
> > > > ...
> > > > Call Trace:
> > > > <IRQ>
> > > > dump_stack_lvl+0xbf/0xee
> > > > print_address_description+0x7b/0x440
> > > > print_report+0x101/0x230
> > > > ? expire_timers+0x144/0x320
> > > > kasan_report+0xed/0x120
> > > > ? expire_timers+0x144/0x320
> > > > expire_timers+0x144/0x320
> > > > __run_timers+0x3ff/0x4d0
> > > > run_timer_softirq+0x41/0x80
> > > > __do_softirq+0x233/0x544
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > This patch changes del_timer() in rose_stop_t0timer() and
> > > > rose_stop_ftimer() to del_timer_sync() in order that the
> > > > timer handler could be finished before the resources such as
> > > > rose_neigh and so on are deallocated. As a result, the UAF
> > > > bugs could be mitigated.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Duoming Zhou <duoming@zju.edu.cn>
> > > > ---
> > > > net/rose/rose_link.c | 4 ++--
> > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/net/rose/rose_link.c b/net/rose/rose_link.c
> > > > index 8b96a56d3a4..9734d1264de 100644
> > > > --- a/net/rose/rose_link.c
> > > > +++ b/net/rose/rose_link.c
> > > > @@ -54,12 +54,12 @@ static void rose_start_t0timer(struct rose_neigh *neigh)
> > > >
> > > > void rose_stop_ftimer(struct rose_neigh *neigh)
> > > > {
> > > > - del_timer(&neigh->ftimer);
> > > > + del_timer_sync(&neigh->ftimer);
> > > > }
> > >
> > > Are you sure this is safe ?
> > >
> > > del_timer_sync() could hang if the caller holds a lock that the timer
> > > function would need to acquire.
> >
> > I think this is safe. The rose_ftimer_expiry() is an empty function that is
> > shown below:
> >
> > static void rose_ftimer_expiry(struct timer_list *t)
> > {
> > }
> >
> > > >
> > > > void rose_stop_t0timer(struct rose_neigh *neigh)
> > > > {
> > > > - del_timer(&neigh->t0timer);
> > > > + del_timer_sync(&neigh->t0timer);
> > > > }
> > >
> > > Same here, please explain why it is safe.
> >
> > The rose_stop_t0timer() may hold "rose_node_list_lock" and "rose_neigh_list_lock",
> > but the timer handler rose_t0timer_expiry() that is shown below does not need
> > these two locks.
> >
> > static void rose_t0timer_expiry(struct timer_list *t)
> > {
> > struct rose_neigh *neigh = from_timer(neigh, t, t0timer);
> >
> > rose_transmit_restart_request(neigh);
> >
> > neigh->dce_mode = 0;
> >
> > rose_start_t0timer(neigh);
>
> This will rearm the timer. del_timer_sync() will not help.
Thank you for your time, but I don't think so.
> Please read the comment in front of del_timer_sync(), in kernel/time/timer.c
I wrote a kernel module to test whether del_timer_sync() could finish a timer handler
that use mod_timer() to rewind itself. The following is the result.
# insmod del_timer_sync.ko
[ 929.374405] my_timer will be create.
[ 929.374738] the jiffies is :4295595572
[ 930.411581] In my_timer_function
[ 930.411956] the jiffies is 4295596609
[ 935.466643] In my_timer_function
[ 935.467505] the jiffies is 4295601665
[ 940.586538] In my_timer_function
[ 940.586916] the jiffies is 4295606784
[ 945.706579] In my_timer_function
[ 945.706885] the jiffies is 4295611904
#
# rmmod del_timer_sync.ko
[ 948.507692] the del_timer_sync is :1
[ 948.507692]
#
#
The result of the experiment shows that the timer handler could
be killed after we execute del_timer_sync(), even if the timer could
rewind itself.
Best regards,
Duoming Zhou
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net] net: rose: fix UAF bug caused by rose_t0timer_expiry
2022-06-30 15:51 ` duoming
@ 2022-06-30 16:07 ` Eric Dumazet
2022-07-01 5:14 ` duoming
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Eric Dumazet @ 2022-06-30 16:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Duoming Zhou
Cc: linux-hams, netdev, LKML, Paolo Abeni, Jakub Kicinski,
David Miller, Ralf Baechle
On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 5:51 PM <duoming@zju.edu.cn> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 17:17:10 +0200 Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> > > > > There are UAF bugs caused by rose_t0timer_expiry(). The
> > > > > root cause is that del_timer() could not stop the timer
> > > > > handler that is running and there is no synchronization.
> > > > > One of the race conditions is shown below:
> > > > >
> > > > > (thread 1) | (thread 2)
> > > > > | rose_device_event
> > > > > | rose_rt_device_down
> > > > > | rose_remove_neigh
> > > > > rose_t0timer_expiry | rose_stop_t0timer(rose_neigh)
> > > > > ... | del_timer(&neigh->t0timer)
> > > > > | kfree(rose_neigh) //[1]FREE
> > > > > neigh->dce_mode //[2]USE |
> > > > >
> > > > > The rose_neigh is deallocated in position [1] and use in
> > > > > position [2].
> > > > >
> > > > > The crash trace triggered by POC is like below:
> > > > >
> > > > > BUG: KASAN: use-after-free in expire_timers+0x144/0x320
> > > > > Write of size 8 at addr ffff888009b19658 by task swapper/0/0
> > > > > ...
> > > > > Call Trace:
> > > > > <IRQ>
> > > > > dump_stack_lvl+0xbf/0xee
> > > > > print_address_description+0x7b/0x440
> > > > > print_report+0x101/0x230
> > > > > ? expire_timers+0x144/0x320
> > > > > kasan_report+0xed/0x120
> > > > > ? expire_timers+0x144/0x320
> > > > > expire_timers+0x144/0x320
> > > > > __run_timers+0x3ff/0x4d0
> > > > > run_timer_softirq+0x41/0x80
> > > > > __do_softirq+0x233/0x544
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > This patch changes del_timer() in rose_stop_t0timer() and
> > > > > rose_stop_ftimer() to del_timer_sync() in order that the
> > > > > timer handler could be finished before the resources such as
> > > > > rose_neigh and so on are deallocated. As a result, the UAF
> > > > > bugs could be mitigated.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Duoming Zhou <duoming@zju.edu.cn>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > net/rose/rose_link.c | 4 ++--
> > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/net/rose/rose_link.c b/net/rose/rose_link.c
> > > > > index 8b96a56d3a4..9734d1264de 100644
> > > > > --- a/net/rose/rose_link.c
> > > > > +++ b/net/rose/rose_link.c
> > > > > @@ -54,12 +54,12 @@ static void rose_start_t0timer(struct rose_neigh *neigh)
> > > > >
> > > > > void rose_stop_ftimer(struct rose_neigh *neigh)
> > > > > {
> > > > > - del_timer(&neigh->ftimer);
> > > > > + del_timer_sync(&neigh->ftimer);
> > > > > }
> > > >
> > > > Are you sure this is safe ?
> > > >
> > > > del_timer_sync() could hang if the caller holds a lock that the timer
> > > > function would need to acquire.
> > >
> > > I think this is safe. The rose_ftimer_expiry() is an empty function that is
> > > shown below:
> > >
> > > static void rose_ftimer_expiry(struct timer_list *t)
> > > {
> > > }
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > void rose_stop_t0timer(struct rose_neigh *neigh)
> > > > > {
> > > > > - del_timer(&neigh->t0timer);
> > > > > + del_timer_sync(&neigh->t0timer);
> > > > > }
> > > >
> > > > Same here, please explain why it is safe.
> > >
> > > The rose_stop_t0timer() may hold "rose_node_list_lock" and "rose_neigh_list_lock",
> > > but the timer handler rose_t0timer_expiry() that is shown below does not need
> > > these two locks.
> > >
> > > static void rose_t0timer_expiry(struct timer_list *t)
> > > {
> > > struct rose_neigh *neigh = from_timer(neigh, t, t0timer);
> > >
> > > rose_transmit_restart_request(neigh);
> > >
> > > neigh->dce_mode = 0;
> > >
> > > rose_start_t0timer(neigh);
> >
> > This will rearm the timer. del_timer_sync() will not help.
>
> Thank you for your time, but I don't think so.
>
> > Please read the comment in front of del_timer_sync(), in kernel/time/timer.c
>
> I wrote a kernel module to test whether del_timer_sync() could finish a timer handler
> that use mod_timer() to rewind itself. The following is the result.
>
> # insmod del_timer_sync.ko
> [ 929.374405] my_timer will be create.
> [ 929.374738] the jiffies is :4295595572
> [ 930.411581] In my_timer_function
> [ 930.411956] the jiffies is 4295596609
> [ 935.466643] In my_timer_function
> [ 935.467505] the jiffies is 4295601665
> [ 940.586538] In my_timer_function
> [ 940.586916] the jiffies is 4295606784
> [ 945.706579] In my_timer_function
> [ 945.706885] the jiffies is 4295611904
>
> #
> # rmmod del_timer_sync.ko
> [ 948.507692] the del_timer_sync is :1
> [ 948.507692]
> #
> #
>
> The result of the experiment shows that the timer handler could
> be killed after we execute del_timer_sync(), even if the timer could
> rewind itself.
This is not enough to run an experiment to determine a comment is obsolete.
Especially if you are not running the code from interrupts, like rose
protocol might...
If you think the comment is obsolete, please send a patch to amend it.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net] net: rose: fix UAF bug caused by rose_t0timer_expiry
2022-06-30 16:07 ` Eric Dumazet
@ 2022-07-01 5:14 ` duoming
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: duoming @ 2022-07-01 5:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Dumazet
Cc: linux-hams, netdev, LKML, Paolo Abeni, Jakub Kicinski,
David Miller, Ralf Baechle
Hello,
On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 18:07:39 +0200 Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > > > > There are UAF bugs caused by rose_t0timer_expiry(). The
> > > > > > root cause is that del_timer() could not stop the timer
> > > > > > handler that is running and there is no synchronization.
> > > > > > One of the race conditions is shown below:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (thread 1) | (thread 2)
> > > > > > | rose_device_event
> > > > > > | rose_rt_device_down
> > > > > > | rose_remove_neigh
> > > > > > rose_t0timer_expiry | rose_stop_t0timer(rose_neigh)
> > > > > > ... | del_timer(&neigh->t0timer)
> > > > > > | kfree(rose_neigh) //[1]FREE
> > > > > > neigh->dce_mode //[2]USE |
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The rose_neigh is deallocated in position [1] and use in
> > > > > > position [2].
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The crash trace triggered by POC is like below:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > BUG: KASAN: use-after-free in expire_timers+0x144/0x320
> > > > > > Write of size 8 at addr ffff888009b19658 by task swapper/0/0
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > Call Trace:
> > > > > > <IRQ>
> > > > > > dump_stack_lvl+0xbf/0xee
> > > > > > print_address_description+0x7b/0x440
> > > > > > print_report+0x101/0x230
> > > > > > ? expire_timers+0x144/0x320
> > > > > > kasan_report+0xed/0x120
> > > > > > ? expire_timers+0x144/0x320
> > > > > > expire_timers+0x144/0x320
> > > > > > __run_timers+0x3ff/0x4d0
> > > > > > run_timer_softirq+0x41/0x80
> > > > > > __do_softirq+0x233/0x544
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This patch changes del_timer() in rose_stop_t0timer() and
> > > > > > rose_stop_ftimer() to del_timer_sync() in order that the
> > > > > > timer handler could be finished before the resources such as
> > > > > > rose_neigh and so on are deallocated. As a result, the UAF
> > > > > > bugs could be mitigated.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Duoming Zhou <duoming@zju.edu.cn>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > net/rose/rose_link.c | 4 ++--
> > > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/net/rose/rose_link.c b/net/rose/rose_link.c
> > > > > > index 8b96a56d3a4..9734d1264de 100644
> > > > > > --- a/net/rose/rose_link.c
> > > > > > +++ b/net/rose/rose_link.c
> > > > > > @@ -54,12 +54,12 @@ static void rose_start_t0timer(struct rose_neigh *neigh)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > void rose_stop_ftimer(struct rose_neigh *neigh)
> > > > > > {
> > > > > > - del_timer(&neigh->ftimer);
> > > > > > + del_timer_sync(&neigh->ftimer);
> > > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you sure this is safe ?
> > > > >
> > > > > del_timer_sync() could hang if the caller holds a lock that the timer
> > > > > function would need to acquire.
> > > >
> > > > I think this is safe. The rose_ftimer_expiry() is an empty function that is
> > > > shown below:
> > > >
> > > > static void rose_ftimer_expiry(struct timer_list *t)
> > > > {
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > void rose_stop_t0timer(struct rose_neigh *neigh)
> > > > > > {
> > > > > > - del_timer(&neigh->t0timer);
> > > > > > + del_timer_sync(&neigh->t0timer);
> > > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > Same here, please explain why it is safe.
> > > >
> > > > The rose_stop_t0timer() may hold "rose_node_list_lock" and "rose_neigh_list_lock",
> > > > but the timer handler rose_t0timer_expiry() that is shown below does not need
> > > > these two locks.
> > > >
> > > > static void rose_t0timer_expiry(struct timer_list *t)
> > > > {
> > > > struct rose_neigh *neigh = from_timer(neigh, t, t0timer);
> > > >
> > > > rose_transmit_restart_request(neigh);
> > > >
> > > > neigh->dce_mode = 0;
> > > >
> > > > rose_start_t0timer(neigh);
> > >
> > > This will rearm the timer. del_timer_sync() will not help.
> >
> > Thank you for your time, but I don't think so.
> >
> > > Please read the comment in front of del_timer_sync(), in kernel/time/timer.c
> >
> > I wrote a kernel module to test whether del_timer_sync() could finish a timer handler
> > that use mod_timer() to rewind itself. The following is the result.
> >
> > # insmod del_timer_sync.ko
> > [ 929.374405] my_timer will be create.
> > [ 929.374738] the jiffies is :4295595572
> > [ 930.411581] In my_timer_function
> > [ 930.411956] the jiffies is 4295596609
> > [ 935.466643] In my_timer_function
> > [ 935.467505] the jiffies is 4295601665
> > [ 940.586538] In my_timer_function
> > [ 940.586916] the jiffies is 4295606784
> > [ 945.706579] In my_timer_function
> > [ 945.706885] the jiffies is 4295611904
> >
> > #
> > # rmmod del_timer_sync.ko
> > [ 948.507692] the del_timer_sync is :1
> > [ 948.507692]
> > #
> > #
> >
> > The result of the experiment shows that the timer handler could
> > be killed after we execute del_timer_sync(), even if the timer could
> > rewind itself.
>
>
> This is not enough to run an experiment to determine a comment is obsolete.
>
> Especially if you are not running the code from interrupts, like rose
> protocol might...
I have tested this patch, it could work.
In order to further prove the del_timer_sync() could stop the timer that
restart itself in its timer handler, I wrote the following kernel module
whoes part of code is shown below:
=================================================================
struct timer_list my_timer;
static void my_timer_callback(struct timer_list *timer);
static void start_timer(void);
static void start_timer(void){
del_timer(&my_timer);
my_timer.expires = jiffies+HZ;
my_timer.function = my_timer_callback;
add_timer(&my_timer);
}
static void my_timer_callback(struct timer_list *timer){
printk("In my_timer_function");
printk("the jiffies is %ld\n",jiffies);
start_timer();
}
static int __init del_timer_sync_init(void)
{
int result;
printk("my_timer will be create.\n");
printk("the jiffies is :%ld\n", jiffies);
timer_setup(&my_timer,my_timer_callback,0);
result = mod_timer(&my_timer,jiffies + SIXP_TXDELAY);
printk("the mod_timer is :%d\n\n",result);
return 0;
}
static void __exit del_timer_sync_exit(void)
{
int result=del_timer_sync(&my_timer);
printk("the del_timer_sync is :%d\n\n", result);
}
=================================================================
The timer handler is running from interrupts and del_timer_sync() could stop
the timer that rewind itself in its timer handler, the result is shown below:
# insmod del_timer_sync.ko
[ 103.505857] my_timer will be create.
[ 103.505922] the jiffies is :4294770832
[ 103.506845] the mod_timer is :0
[ 103.506845]
# [ 103.532389] In my_timer_function
[ 103.532452] the jiffies is 4294770859
[ 104.576768] In my_timer_function
[ 104.577096] the jiffies is 4294771904
[ 105.600941] In my_timer_function
[ 105.601072] the jiffies is 4294772928
[ 106.625397] In my_timer_function
[ 106.625573] the jiffies is 4294773952
[ 107.648995] In my_timer_function
[ 107.649212] the jiffies is 4294774976
[ 108.673037] In my_timer_function
[ 108.673787] the jiffies is 4294776001
rmmod del_timer_sync.ko
[ 109.649482] the del_timer_sync is :1
[ 109.649482]
#
The root cause is shown below:
do {
ret = try_to_del_timer_sync(timer);
if (unlikely(ret < 0)) {
del_timer_wait_running(timer);
cpu_relax();
}
} while (ret < 0);
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/kernel/time/timer.c#L1381
If we call another thread such as a work_queue or the code in other places
to restart the timer instead of in its timer handler, the del_timer_sync()
could not stop it.
> If you think the comment is obsolete, please send a patch to amend it.
The comment says:
* Synchronization rules: Callers must prevent restarting of the timer,
* otherwise this function is meaningless.
We could restart the timer successfully except for restarting in its
timer handler after we call del_timer_sync().
I think changing the comment to the following is better:
* Synchronization rules: Callers must prevent restarting of the timer in
* other places except for its timer handler, otherwise this function is
* meaningless.
Best regards,
Duoming Zhou
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-07-01 5:14 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-06-30 14:38 [PATCH net] net: rose: fix UAF bug caused by rose_t0timer_expiry Duoming Zhou
2022-06-30 14:44 ` Eric Dumazet
2022-06-30 15:08 ` duoming
2022-06-30 15:17 ` Eric Dumazet
2022-06-30 15:51 ` duoming
2022-06-30 16:07 ` Eric Dumazet
2022-07-01 5:14 ` duoming
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).