Re: [PATCH] net: ath9k: fix use-after-free in ath9k_hif_usb_rx_cb

[Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@gmail.com>]

On 8/31/21 13:43, Pavel Skripkin wrote:
> On 8/4/21 10:57 PM, Pavel Skripkin wrote:
>> On 8/4/21 10:48 PM, Pavel Skripkin wrote:
>>> Syzbot reported use-after-free Read in ath9k_hif_usb_rx_cb(). The
>>> problem was in incorrect htc_handle->drv_priv initialization.
>>> 
>>> Probable call trace which can trigger use-after-free:
>>> 
>>> ath9k_htc_probe_device()
>>>    /* htc_handle->drv_priv = priv; */
>>>    ath9k_htc_wait_for_target()      <--- Failed
>>>    ieee80211_free_hw()		   <--- priv pointer is freed
>>> 
>>> <IRQ>
>>> ...
>>> ath9k_hif_usb_rx_cb()
>>>    ath9k_hif_usb_rx_stream()
>>>     RX_STAT_INC()		<--- htc_handle->drv_priv access
>>> 
>>> In order to not add fancy protection for drv_priv we can move
>>> htc_handle->drv_priv initialization at the end of the
>>> ath9k_htc_probe_device() and add helper macro to make
>>> all *_STAT_* macros NULL save.
>>> 
>>> Also, I made whitespaces clean ups in *_STAT_* macros definitions
>>> to make checkpatch.pl happy.
>>> 
>>> Fixes: fb9987d0f748 ("ath9k_htc: Support for AR9271 chipset.")
>>> Reported-and-tested-by: syzbot+03110230a11411024147@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
>>> Signed-off-by: Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>> 
>>> Hi, ath9k maintainer/developers!
>>> 
>>> I know, that you do not like changes, that wasn't tested on real
>>> hardware. I really don't access to this one, so I'd like you to test it on
>>> real hardware piece, if you have one. At least, this patch was tested by
>>> syzbot [1]
>>> 
>>> [1] https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=6ead44e37afb6866ac0c7dd121b4ce07cb665f60
>>> 
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/htc.h          | 11 ++++++-----
>>>   drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/htc_drv_init.c |  3 ++-
>>>   2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>> 
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/htc.h b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/htc.h
>>> index 0a1634238e67..c16b2a482e83 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/htc.h
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/htc.h
>>> @@ -326,11 +326,12 @@ static inline struct ath9k_htc_tx_ctl *HTC_SKB_CB(struct sk_buff *skb)
>>>   
>>>   #ifdef CONFIG_ATH9K_HTC_DEBUGFS
>>>   
>>> -#define TX_STAT_INC(c) (hif_dev->htc_handle->drv_priv->debug.tx_stats.c++)
>>> -#define TX_STAT_ADD(c, a) (hif_dev->htc_handle->drv_priv->debug.tx_stats.c += a)
>>> -#define RX_STAT_INC(c) (hif_dev->htc_handle->drv_priv->debug.skbrx_stats.c++)
>>> -#define RX_STAT_ADD(c, a) (hif_dev->htc_handle->drv_priv->debug.skbrx_stats.c += a)
>>> -#define CAB_STAT_INC   priv->debug.tx_stats.cab_queued++
>>> +#define __STAT_SAVE(expr)	(hif_dev->htc_handle->drv_priv ? (expr) : 0)
>>> +#define TX_STAT_INC(c)		__STAT_SAVE(hif_dev->htc_handle->drv_priv->debug.tx_stats.c++)
>>> +#define TX_STAT_ADD(c, a)	__STAT_SAVE(hif_dev->htc_handle->drv_priv->debug.tx_stats.c += a)
>>> +#define RX_STAT_INC(c)		__STAT_SAVE(hif_dev->htc_handle->drv_priv->debug.skbrx_stats.c++)
>>> +#define RX_STAT_ADD(c, a)	__STAT_SAVE(hif_dev->htc_handle->drv_priv->debug.skbrx_stats.c += a)
>>> +#define CAB_STAT_INC		(priv->debug.tx_stats.cab_queued++)
>>>   
>>>   #define TX_QSTAT_INC(q) (priv->debug.tx_stats.queue_stats[q]++)
>>>   
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/htc_drv_init.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/htc_drv_init.c
>>> index ff61ae34ecdf..07ac88fb1c57 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/htc_drv_init.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/htc_drv_init.c
>>> @@ -944,7 +944,6 @@ int ath9k_htc_probe_device(struct htc_target *htc_handle, struct device *dev,
>>>   	priv->hw = hw;
>>>   	priv->htc = htc_handle;
>>>   	priv->dev = dev;
>>> -	htc_handle->drv_priv = priv;
>>>   	SET_IEEE80211_DEV(hw, priv->dev);
>>>   
>>>   	ret = ath9k_htc_wait_for_target(priv);
>>> @@ -965,6 +964,8 @@ int ath9k_htc_probe_device(struct htc_target *htc_handle, struct device *dev,
>>>   	if (ret)
>>>   		goto err_init;
>>>   
>>> +	htc_handle->drv_priv = priv;
>>> +
>>>   	return 0;
>>>   
>>>   err_init:
>>> 
>> 
>> Added missing LKML in CC. Sorry for confusion.
>> 
>> 
> Any chance to review this patch? Thanks
> 
> 

gentle ping one more time :) Thanks





With regards,
Pavel Skripkin