Re: [LTP] [PATCH v1] fsconfig: New case cover CVE-2022-0185

Wei Gao via ltp
2023-02-07T00:47:28Z

On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 05:38:18AM -0500, Wei Gao via ltp wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 01:49:43PM +0100, Petr Vorel wrote:
> > Hi Wei,
> >
> > ...
> > > +++ b/include/lapi/fsmount.h
> > > @@ -11,12 +11,15 @@
> > > #include "config.h"
> > > #include <sys/syscall.h>
> > > #include <sys/types.h>
> > > -#include <sys/mount.h>
> >
> > > #ifndef HAVE_FSOPEN
> > > # ifdef HAVE_LINUX_MOUNT_H
> > > # include <linux/mount.h>
> > > +# else
> > > +# include <sys/mount.h>
> > > # endif
> > > +#else
> > > +# include <sys/mount.h>
> > > #endif
> > Does <linux/mount.h> conflicts with <sys/mount.h>? Or why is this needed?
> >
> > > #include "lapi/fcntl.h"
> > > diff --git a/runtest/syscalls b/runtest/syscalls
> > > index ae37a1192..b4cde8071 100644
> > > --- a/runtest/syscalls
> > > +++ b/runtest/syscalls
> > > @@ -383,6 +383,7 @@ fremovexattr02 fremovexattr02
> >
> > > fsconfig01 fsconfig01
> > > fsconfig02 fsconfig02
> > > +fsconfig03 fsconfig03
> >
> > NOTE: you also need to add a new record in testcases/kernel/syscalls/fsconfig/.gitignore.
> >
> > > diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fsconfig/fsconfig03.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fsconfig/fsconfig03.c
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 000000000..e076c2f09
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fsconfig/fsconfig03.c
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
> > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
> > > +/*
> > > + * Copyright (c) 2023 Wei Gao <wegao@suse.com>
> > > + */
> > > +
> > > +/*\
> > NOTE, there should be docparse label:
> > * [Description]
> > > + * Test add some coverage to CVE-2022-0185.
> > > + * Try to trigger a crash.
> > > + * References links:
> > > + * https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2022/01/25/14
> > > + * https://github.com/Crusaders-of-Rust/CVE-2022-0185
> > > + */
> > > +
> > > +#include "tst_test.h"
> > > +#include "lapi/fsmount.h"
> > > +
> > > +#define MNTPOINT "mntpoint"
> > > +
> > > +static int fd = -1;
> > > +
> > > +static void setup(void)
> > > +{
> > > + fsopen_supported_by_kernel();
> > > +
> > > + TEST(fd = fsopen(tst_device->fs_type, 0));
> > > + if (fd == -1)
> > > + tst_brk(TBROK | TTERRNO, "fsopen() failed");
> > Sooner or later we should add SAFE_FSOPEN(), but that can wait.
> >
> > > +
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static void cleanup(void)
> > > +{
> > > + if (fd != -1)
> > > + SAFE_CLOSE(fd);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static void run(void)
> > > +{
> > > + char *val = "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA";
> > > +
> > > + for (unsigned int i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
> > > + TEST(fsconfig(fd, FSCONFIG_SET_STRING, "\x00", val, 0));
> > > + if (TST_RET == -1)
> > > + tst_brk(TFAIL | TTERRNO, "fsconfig(FSCONFIG_SET_STRING) failed");
> > TST_EXP_PASS() or other could here be used (it should be changes also in fsconfig01.c).
> >
> > Hm, there is a kernel fix from 5.17 [1]. But test fails when I run it on 6.2.0-rc5:
> >
> > tst_supported_fs_types.c:165: TINFO: Skipping FUSE based ntfs as requested by the test
> > tst_supported_fs_types.c:157: TINFO: Skipping tmpfs as requested by the test
> > tst_test.c:1634: TINFO: === Testing on ext3 ===
> > tst_test.c:1093: TINFO: Formatting /dev/loop0 with ext3 opts='' extra opts=''
> > mke2fs 1.46.5 (30-Dec-2021)
> > fsconfig03.c:44: TFAIL: fsconfig(FSCONFIG_SET_STRING) failed: EINVAL (22)
> >
> > Isn't it the opposite: we expect to fail, thus TST_EXP_FAIL() should here be
> > used?
> >
> I have not test on 6.2.0 kernel, i need reproduce this firstly.
> > > + }
> > > + tst_res(TPASS, "Try fsconfig overflow on %s done!", tst_device->fs_type);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static struct tst_test test = {
> > > + .test_all = run,
> > > + .setup = setup,
> > > + .cleanup = cleanup,
> > > + .needs_root = 1,
> > > + .format_device = 1,
> > > + .mntpoint = MNTPOINT,
> > > + .all_filesystems = 1,
> > > + .skip_filesystems = (const char *const []){"fuse", "ext2", "xfs", "tmpfs", NULL},
> >
> > I wonder why this is should not be run on XFS and ext2.
> ext2: this if failed on one of my specific machine, so normally this should run.
> xfs: this always error happen with error code "TFAIL: fsconfig(FSCONFIG_SET_STRING) failed: EINVAL (22)", i
> need debug kernel to check what's happen.

Update xfs investigation progress:
After some debug check ths kernel file system code, i found xfs ONLY can accept key which defined in xfs_fs_parameters, so
EINVAL returned.

===xfs kernel logic tracking detail start ===

SYSCALL_DEFINE5(fsconfig fs/fsopen.c
vfs_fsconfig_locked
vfs_parse_fs_param
ret = fc->ops->parse_param(fc, param); // this is xfs_fs_parse_param
xfs_fs_parse_param
fs_parse
__fs_parse

103 int __fs_parse(struct p_log *log,
104 const struct fs_parameter_spec *desc,
105 struct fs_parameter *param,
106 struct fs_parse_result *result)
107 {
108 const struct fs_parameter_spec *p;
109
110 result->uint_64 = 0;
111
(gdb) l
112 p = fs_lookup_key(desc, param, &result->negated);
113 if (!p)
114 return -ENOPARAM; <==== this error

static const struct fs_parameter_spec xfs_fs_parameters[] = {
fsparam_u32("logbufs", Opt_logbufs),
fsparam_string("logbsize", Opt_logbsize),
fsparam_string("logdev", Opt_logdev), <=== ONLY can accept this table as KEY!!
fsparam_string("rtdev", Opt_rtdev),
fsparam_flag("wsync", Opt_wsync),

===xfs kernel logic tracking detail end===

> >
> > Also, while we have CVE and kernel fix [1], it should be marked in struct tst_test:
> >
> > .tags = (const struct tst_tag[]) {
> > {"linux-git", "722d94847de2"},
> > {"CVE", "2020-29373"},
> > {"CVE", "2022-0185"},
> > {}
> > }
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Petr
> >
> > [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=722d94847de2
> >
> >
> > > +};
>
> --
> Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp