Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4951C433EF for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2022 08:35:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1348953AbiAKIfL (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jan 2022 03:35:11 -0500 Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.187]:16700 "EHLO szxga01-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1348936AbiAKIfK (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jan 2022 03:35:10 -0500 Received: from dggpeml500020.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.53]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4JY3nd5JmvzZf5t; Tue, 11 Jan 2022 16:31:33 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.174.177.174] (10.174.177.174) by dggpeml500020.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.88) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2308.20; Tue, 11 Jan 2022 16:35:08 +0800 Subject: Re: Questions about the patch 054aa8d439b9 ("fget: check that the fd still exists after getting a ref to it") To: Jann Horn CC: Linus Torvalds , , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "zhangyi (F)" , YueHaibing , Baokun Li References: <58644a55-561d-4a2e-6741-589d013837f1@huawei.com> From: "libaokun (A)" Message-ID: <6cefad75-9e7e-1cf8-22ad-bbee8a105933@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2022 16:35:08 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.174.177.174] X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems702-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.179) To dggpeml500020.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.88) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 在 2022/1/10 17:09, Jann Horn 写道: > On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 11:32 AM libaokun (A) wrote: >>> From: Linus Torvalds >>> Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2021 10:06:14 -0800 >>> Subject: fget: check that the fd still exists after getting a ref to it >>> >>> Jann Horn points out that there is another possible race wrt Unix domain >>> socket garbage collection, somewhat reminiscent of the one fixed in >>> commit cbcf01128d0a ("af_unix: fix garbage collect vs MSG_PEEK"). >>> >>> See the extended comment about the garbage collection requirements added >>> to unix_peek_fds() by that commit for details. >>> >>> The race comes from how we can locklessly look up a file descriptor just >>> as it is in the process of being closed, and with the right artificial >>> timing (Jann added a few strategic 'mdelay(500)' calls to do that), the >>> Unix domain socket garbage collector could see the reference count >>> decrement of the close() happen before fget() took its reference to the >>> file and the file was attached onto a new file descriptor. >> I analyzed this CVE and tried to reproduce it. >> >> I guess he triggered it like the stack below. >> >> >> close_fd | >> pick_file | >> | __fget_files >> file = files_lookup_fd_rcu(files, fd); | >> | >> rcu_assign_pointer(fdt->fd[fd], NULL); >> filp_close | >> fput | >> | get_file_rcu_many // ned ref>=1 >> fput_many(file, 1); | >> file_free(file); | >> | return file >> | // read-after-free > The race is more complicated than that; you also need to add unix_gc() > to the race. And if you want to get to memory corruption, you need one > or two more races involving unix_stream_read_generic() on top of that. > >> If you want to successfully execute the get_file_rcu_many function, >> >> the reference counting of the file is greater than or equal to 1 and >> >> is greater than or equal to 2 after the execution. >> >> However, close releases only one reference count and does not release >> the file, >> >> so read-after-free does not occur. So how is the race triggered here? > This bug does not lead to a UAF of the file, it leads to a locking > inconsistency between the unix stream read path and the GC. > >> The question has been pondered for a long time without any results. >> >> Could I get more details (e.g. reproduction methods or stacks) from you ? > See https://bugs.chromium.org/p/project-zero/issues/detail?id=2247 for > the original bug report. I'm also working on a more detailed blog > post, but that isn't finished yet. > . Thank you very much for your reply! With your help, I have understood the problem and successfully reproduced it. Thanks a million! -- With Best Regards, Baokun Li