Hi all,
this seems to be a duplicate of CVE-2023-1192 [0], even though NVD lists
another, wrong patch. The RH bug has more details [1].
Cheers,
Robert
[0] https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-1192
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2154178#c28
On 02.03.24 23:00, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> Description
> ===========
>
> In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
>
> cifs: Fix UAF in cifs_demultiplex_thread()
>
> There is a UAF when xfstests on cifs:
>
> BUG: KASAN: use-after-free in smb2_is_network_name_deleted+0x27/0x160
> Read of size 4 at addr ffff88810103fc08 by task cifsd/923
>
> CPU: 1 PID: 923 Comm: cifsd Not tainted 6.1.0-rc4+ #45
> ...
> Call Trace:
> <TASK>
> dump_stack_lvl+0x34/0x44
> print_report+0x171/0x472
> kasan_report+0xad/0x130
> kasan_check_range+0x145/0x1a0
> smb2_is_network_name_deleted+0x27/0x160
> cifs_demultiplex_thread.cold+0x172/0x5a4
> kthread+0x165/0x1a0
> ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
> </TASK>
>
> Allocated by task 923:
> kasan_save_stack+0x1e/0x40
> kasan_set_track+0x21/0x30
> __kasan_slab_alloc+0x54/0x60
> kmem_cache_alloc+0x147/0x320
> mempool_alloc+0xe1/0x260
> cifs_small_buf_get+0x24/0x60
> allocate_buffers+0xa1/0x1c0
> cifs_demultiplex_thread+0x199/0x10d0
> kthread+0x165/0x1a0
> ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
>
> Freed by task 921:
> kasan_save_stack+0x1e/0x40
> kasan_set_track+0x21/0x30
> kasan_save_free_info+0x2a/0x40
> ____kasan_slab_free+0x143/0x1b0
> kmem_cache_free+0xe3/0x4d0
> cifs_small_buf_release+0x29/0x90
> SMB2_negotiate+0x8b7/0x1c60
> smb2_negotiate+0x51/0x70
> cifs_negotiate_protocol+0xf0/0x160
> cifs_get_smb_ses+0x5fa/0x13c0
> mount_get_conns+0x7a/0x750
> cifs_mount+0x103/0xd00
> cifs_smb3_do_mount+0x1dd/0xcb0
> smb3_get_tree+0x1d5/0x300
> vfs_get_tree+0x41/0xf0
> path_mount+0x9b3/0xdd0
> __x64_sys_mount+0x190/0x1d0
> do_syscall_64+0x35/0x80
> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x46/0xb0
>
> The UAF is because:
>
> mount(pid: 921) | cifsd(pid: 923)
> -------------------------------|-------------------------------
> | cifs_demultiplex_thread
> SMB2_negotiate |
> cifs_send_recv |
> compound_send_recv |
> smb_send_rqst |
> wait_for_response |
> wait_event_state [1] |
> | standard_receive3
> | cifs_handle_standard
> | handle_mid
> | mid->resp_buf = buf; [2]
> | dequeue_mid [3]
> KILL the process [4] |
> resp_iov[i].iov_base = buf |
> free_rsp_buf [5] |
> | is_network_name_deleted [6]
> | callback
>
> 1. After send request to server, wait the response until
> mid->mid_state != SUBMITTED;
> 2. Receive response from server, and set it to mid;
> 3. Set the mid state to RECEIVED;
> 4. Kill the process, the mid state already RECEIVED, get 0;
> 5. Handle and release the negotiate response;
> 6. UAF.
>
> It can be easily reproduce with add some delay in [3] - [6].
>
> Only sync call has the problem since async call's callback is
> executed in cifsd process.
>
> Add an extra state to mark the mid state to READY before wakeup the
> waitter, then it can get the resp safely.
>
> The Linux kernel CVE team has assigned CVE-2023-52572 to this issue.
>
>
> Affected and fixed versions
> ===========================
>
> Issue introduced in 2.6.16 with commit ec637e3ffb6b and fixed in 6.1.56 with commit 908b3b5e97d2
> Issue introduced in 2.6.16 with commit ec637e3ffb6b and fixed in 6.5.6 with commit 76569e3819e0
> Issue introduced in 2.6.16 with commit ec637e3ffb6b and fixed in 6.6 with commit d527f51331ca
>
> Please see https://www.kernel.org or a full list of currently supported
> kernel versions by the kernel community.
>
> Unaffected versions might change over time as fixes are backported to
> older supported kernel versions. The official CVE entry at
> https://cve.org/CVERecord/?id=CVE-2023-52572
> will be updated if fixes are backported, please check that for the most
> up to date information about this issue.
>
>
> Affected files
> ==============
>
> The file(s) affected by this issue are:
> fs/smb/client/cifsglob.h
> fs/smb/client/transport.c
>
>
> Mitigation
> ==========
>
> The Linux kernel CVE team recommends that you update to the latest
> stable kernel version for this, and many other bugfixes. Individual
> changes are never tested alone, but rather are part of a larger kernel
> release. Cherry-picking individual commits is not recommended or
> supported by the Linux kernel community at all. If however, updating to
> the latest release is impossible, the individual changes to resolve this
> issue can be found at these commits:
> https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/908b3b5e97d25e879de3d1f172a255665491c2c3
> https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/76569e3819e0bb59fc19b1b8688b017e627c268a
> https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/d527f51331cace562393a8038d870b3e9916686f
>
--
Security Engineer, SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Frankenstraße
146, 90461 Nürnberg, Germany, GF: Ivo Totev, Andrew McDonald, Werner
Knoblich (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg)
GPG: D29F 82AA 9FD5 9D6E 74B1 6370 089E DB3D 230A 2404
On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 11:38:49AM +0100, Robert Frohl wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> this seems to be a duplicate of CVE-2023-1192 [0], even though NVD lists
> another, wrong patch. The RH bug has more details [1].
>
> Cheers,
> Robert
>
>
> [0] https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-1192
> [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2154178#c28
That's a mess. Please have RH update the json entry with CVE with the
correct git commit id and then I'll be glad to revoke this. The
information in NVD is not "real" from the point of view of the CVE
database, so I can't take information there as being correct, or not.
As you know, NVD is just an add-on for CVE entries, one of many created
by many different groups/governments.
Until it's fixed in the CVE database, this CVE should stand as it refers
to the correct fix that people need to know about, not the incorrect one
in the RH-assigned CVE.
thanks,
greg k-h
Hi Redhat Security,
could you have a look and update the entry for CVE-2023-1192, if you
agree that CVE-2023-52572 is a duplicate and the referenced patch for
CVE-2023-1192 is incorrect ?
Thanks,
Robert
On 05.03.24 12:08, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 11:38:49AM +0100, Robert Frohl wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> this seems to be a duplicate of CVE-2023-1192 [0], even though NVD lists
>> another, wrong patch. The RH bug has more details [1].
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Robert
>>
>>
>> [0] https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-1192
>> [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2154178#c28
>
> That's a mess. Please have RH update the json entry with CVE with the
> correct git commit id and then I'll be glad to revoke this. The
> information in NVD is not "real" from the point of view of the CVE
> database, so I can't take information there as being correct, or not.
> As you know, NVD is just an add-on for CVE entries, one of many created
> by many different groups/governments.
>
> Until it's fixed in the CVE database, this CVE should stand as it refers
> to the correct fix that people need to know about, not the incorrect one
> in the RH-assigned CVE.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
--
Security Engineer, SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Frankenstraße
146, 90461 Nürnberg, Germany, GF: Ivo Totev, Andrew McDonald, Werner
Knoblich (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg)
GPG: D29F 82AA 9FD5 9D6E 74B1 6370 089E DB3D 230A 2404
Hello!
INC2885107 (Re: CVE-2023-52572: cifs: Fix UAF in cifs_demultiplex_thread()) has been updated.
Opened for: [email protected]
Followers: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Rohit Keshri updated your request with the following comments:
Hello Robert,
Thank you for reaching to Red Hat Product Security.
I have reviewed the flaws, CVE-2023-1192 has the correct patch used in the reference.
Also, CVE-2023-52572 is a duplicate of CVE-2023-1192, which we will soon request for the same.
I will also share some observation for CVE-2023-1192 while it us under investigation:
~~~
## TL;DR
After CIFS transfers response data to system call, there is still a local variable points to the memory region, and if system call frees it faster than CIFS uses it, CIFS will access a free memory region when calls function such as `smb2_is_status_io_timeout()` .
## Detail
When client uses CIFS, system calls about file operation will call cifs API to send samba request, and there is a CIFS kernel thread handler `cifs_demultiplex_thread()` which receives response from remote server and transfer those data to corresponding syscall request.
In the beginning, CIFS kernel thread will allocate memory chunk to `server->smallbuf` in function `allocate_buffers()` and assign the pointer to local variable `buf` . Then cifs kernel thread will get a `struct mid_q_entry` instance from `server->ops->find_mid()` , this struct is used to transfer data between kernel thread and system call. Then cifs kernel thread calls `standard_receive3()` to receive response from server, saving data into `server->smallbuf`, assigning `server->smallbuf` to `mid_q_entry` instance `mids[0]`, and marking this `mid_q_entry` has been received response finally.
~~~
Please let us know if there are any further queries on this please.
Regards,
Rohit
How can I track and update my request?
To respond, reply to this email. You may also create a new email and include the request number (INC2885107) in the subject.
Thank you,
Product Security
Ref:MSG86263708
On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 10:30:08AM -0800, Red Hat Product Security wrote:
>
> Hello Robert,
> Thank you for reaching to Red Hat Product Security.
> I have reviewed the flaws, CVE-2023-1192 has the correct patch used in the reference.
What do you mean by "reference"?
CVE-2023-1192 points to a patch for a totally different filesystem
(ntfs3). Will that be fixed?
And please stop responding in HTML format, the mailing lists reject this :(
thanks,
greg k-h
On 06.03.24 10:16, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 10:30:08AM -0800, Red Hat Product Security wrote:
>>
>> Hello Robert,
>> Thank you for reaching to Red Hat Product Security.
>> I have reviewed the flaws, CVE-2023-1192 has the correct patch used in the reference.
>
> What do you mean by "reference"?
>
> CVE-2023-1192 points to a patch for a totally different filesystem
> (ntfs3). Will that be fixed?
This is also stated in the RH bugzilla, that the initial patch was wrong:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2154178#c28
>
> And please stop responding in HTML format, the mailing lists reject this :(
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
--
Security Engineer, SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Frankenstraße
146, 90461 Nürnberg, Germany, GF: Ivo Totev, Andrew McDonald, Werner
Knoblich (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg)
GPG: D29F 82AA 9FD5 9D6E 74B1 6370 089E DB3D 230A 2404
On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 10:23:37AM +0100, Robert Frohl wrote:
> On 06.03.24 10:16, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 10:30:08AM -0800, Red Hat Product Security wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello Robert,
> > > Thank you for reaching to Red Hat Product Security.
> > > I have reviewed the flaws, CVE-2023-1192 has the correct patch used in the reference.
> >
> > What do you mean by "reference"?
> >
> > CVE-2023-1192 points to a patch for a totally different filesystem
> > (ntfs3). Will that be fixed?
>
> This is also stated in the RH bugzilla, that the initial patch was wrong:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2154178#c28
Ok, so what will RH be doing here?
confused,
greg k-h
On 06.03.24 10:45, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 10:23:37AM +0100, Robert Frohl wrote:
>> On 06.03.24 10:16, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 10:30:08AM -0800, Red Hat Product Security wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello Robert,
>>>> Thank you for reaching to Red Hat Product Security.
>>>> I have reviewed the flaws, CVE-2023-1192 has the correct patch used in the reference.
>>>
>>> What do you mean by "reference"?
>>>
>>> CVE-2023-1192 points to a patch for a totally different filesystem
>>> (ntfs3). Will that be fixed?
>>
>> This is also stated in the RH bugzilla, that the initial patch was wrong:
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2154178#c28
>
> Ok, so what will RH be doing here?
>
> confused,
I hope that the additional information will help to update the published
information.
The bug states that the initial patch was wrong, but it looks like it
just was never updated/fixed in the published information for CVE-2023-1192.
Cheers,
Robert
--
Security Engineer, SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Frankenstraße
146, 90461 Nürnberg, Germany, GF: Ivo Totev, Andrew McDonald, Werner
Knoblich (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg)
GPG: D29F 82AA 9FD5 9D6E 74B1 6370 089E DB3D 230A 2404