Re: [PATCH v2 03/12] cachefiles: fix slab-use-after-free in cachefiles_ondemand_get_fd()

[Baokun Li <libaokun@huaweicloud.com>]

On 2024/5/20 16:06, Jingbo Xu wrote:
>
> On 5/15/24 4:45 PM, libaokun@huaweicloud.com wrote:
>> From: Baokun Li <libaokun1@huawei.com>
>>
>> We got the following issue in a fuzz test of randomly issuing the restore
>> command:
>>
>> ==================================================================
>> BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in cachefiles_ondemand_daemon_read+0x609/0xab0
>> Write of size 4 at addr ffff888109164a80 by task ondemand-04-dae/4962
>>
>> CPU: 11 PID: 4962 Comm: ondemand-04-dae Not tainted 6.8.0-rc7-dirty #542
>> Call Trace:
>>   kasan_report+0x94/0xc0
>>   cachefiles_ondemand_daemon_read+0x609/0xab0
>>   vfs_read+0x169/0xb50
>>   ksys_read+0xf5/0x1e0
>>
>> Allocated by task 626:
>>   __kmalloc+0x1df/0x4b0
>>   cachefiles_ondemand_send_req+0x24d/0x690
>>   cachefiles_create_tmpfile+0x249/0xb30
>>   cachefiles_create_file+0x6f/0x140
>>   cachefiles_look_up_object+0x29c/0xa60
>>   cachefiles_lookup_cookie+0x37d/0xca0
>>   fscache_cookie_state_machine+0x43c/0x1230
>>   [...]
>>
>> Freed by task 626:
>>   kfree+0xf1/0x2c0
>>   cachefiles_ondemand_send_req+0x568/0x690
>>   cachefiles_create_tmpfile+0x249/0xb30
>>   cachefiles_create_file+0x6f/0x140
>>   cachefiles_look_up_object+0x29c/0xa60
>>   cachefiles_lookup_cookie+0x37d/0xca0
>>   fscache_cookie_state_machine+0x43c/0x1230
>>   [...]
>> ==================================================================
>>
>> Following is the process that triggers the issue:
>>
>>       mount  |   daemon_thread1    |    daemon_thread2
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>   cachefiles_ondemand_init_object
>>    cachefiles_ondemand_send_req
>>     REQ_A = kzalloc(sizeof(*req) + data_len)
>>     wait_for_completion(&REQ_A->done)
>>
>>              cachefiles_daemon_read
>>               cachefiles_ondemand_daemon_read
>>                REQ_A = cachefiles_ondemand_select_req
>>                cachefiles_ondemand_get_fd
>>                copy_to_user(_buffer, msg, n)
>>              process_open_req(REQ_A)
>>                                    ------ restore ------
>>                                    cachefiles_ondemand_restore
>>                                    xas_for_each(&xas, req, ULONG_MAX)
>>                                     xas_set_mark(&xas, CACHEFILES_REQ_NEW);
>>
>>                                    cachefiles_daemon_read
>>                                     cachefiles_ondemand_daemon_read
>>                                      REQ_A = cachefiles_ondemand_select_req
>>
>>               write(devfd, ("copen %u,%llu", msg->msg_id, size));
>>               cachefiles_ondemand_copen
>>                xa_erase(&cache->reqs, id)
>>                complete(&REQ_A->done)
>>     kfree(REQ_A)
>>                                      cachefiles_ondemand_get_fd(REQ_A)
>>                                       fd = get_unused_fd_flags
>>                                       file = anon_inode_getfile
>>                                       fd_install(fd, file)
>>                                       load = (void *)REQ_A->msg.data;
>>                                       load->fd = fd;
>>                                       // load UAF !!!
>>
>> This issue is caused by issuing a restore command when the daemon is still
>> alive, which results in a request being processed multiple times thus
>> triggering a UAF. So to avoid this problem, add an additional reference
>> count to cachefiles_req, which is held while waiting and reading, and then
>> released when the waiting and reading is over.
>>
>> Note that since there is only one reference count for waiting, we need to
>> avoid the same request being completed multiple times, so we can only
>> complete the request if it is successfully removed from the xarray.
>>
>> Fixes: e73fa11a356c ("cachefiles: add restore command to recover inflight ondemand read requests")
>> Suggested-by: Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Baokun Li <libaokun1@huawei.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Jia Zhu <zhujia.zj@bytedance.com>
> How could we protect it from being erased from the xarray with the same
> message id in this case?

We will hold xa_lock while erasing the id to avoid concurrency.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Baokun Li