From: sunyiqi <sunyiqixm@gmail.com>
To: pabeni@redhat.com
Cc: davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
sunyiqixm@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] net: do not release sk in sk_wait_event
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 18:23:29 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240815102329.172161-1-sunyiqixm@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e6171479-28b4-4155-8578-37a14dabee50@redhat.com>
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 12:03:37 +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On 8/15/24 10:49, sunyiqi wrote:
> > When investigating the kcm socket UAF which is also found by syzbot,
> > I found that the root cause of this problem is actually in
> > sk_wait_event.
> >
> > In sk_wait_event, sk is released and relocked and called by
> > sk_stream_wait_memory. Protocols like tcp, kcm, etc., called it in some
> > ops function like *sendmsg which will lock the sk at the beginning.
> > But sk_stream_wait_memory releases sk unexpectedly and destroy
> > the thread safety. Finally it causes the kcm sk UAF.
> >
> > If at the time when a thread(thread A) calls sk_stream_wait_memory
> > and the other thread(thread B) is waiting for lock in lock_sock,
> > thread B will successfully get the sk lock as thread A release sk lock
> > in sk_wait_event.
> >
> > The thread B may change the sk which is not thread A expecting.
> >
> > As a result, it will lead kernel to the unexpected behavior. Just like
> > the kcm sk UAF, which is actually cause by sk_wait_event in
> > sk_stream_wait_memory.
> >
> > Previous commit d9dc8b0f8b4e ("net: fix sleeping for sk_wait_event()")
> > in 2016 seems do not solved this problem. Is it necessary to release
> > sock in sk_wait_event? Or just delete it to make the protocol ops
> > thread-secure.
>
> As a I wrote previously, please describe the suspected race more
> clearly, with the exact calls sequence that lead to the UAF.
>
> Releasing the socket lock is not enough to cause UAF.
Thread A Thread B
kcm_sendmsg
lock_sock kcm_sendmsg
lock_sock (blocked & waiting)
head = sk->seq_buf
sk_stream_wait_memory
sk_wait_event
release_sock
lock_sock (get the lock)
head = sk->seq_buf
add head to sk->sk_write_queue
release_sock
lock_sock return
err_out to free(head)
release_sock
return
// ...
kcm_release
// ...
__skb_queue_purge(&sk->sk_write_queue) // <--- UAF
// ...
The repro can be downloaded here:
https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=b72d86aa5df17ce74c60
> Removing the release/lock pair in sk_wait_event() will break many
> protocols (e.g. TCP) as the stack will not be able to land packets in
> the receive queue while the socked lock is owned.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Paolo
>
Also a question about it's protocol itself should carefully use low-level
kernel API encapsulation to ensure its thread-safety or kernel API should
guarantee thread-safety since sk_wait_event or sk_stream_wait_memory used
in many cases.
Sincerely,
Yiqi Sun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-08-15 10:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-08-15 8:49 sunyiqi
2024-08-15 10:03 ` Paolo Abeni
2024-08-15 10:23 ` sunyiqi [this message]
2024-08-15 19:56 ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
2024-08-15 22:07 ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
2024-08-15 11:14 ` Jason Xing
2024-08-27 8:59 ` sunyiqi
2024-08-21 7:38 ` kernel test robot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20240815102329.172161-1-sunyiqixm@gmail.com \
--to=sunyiqixm@gmail.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®