[PATCH net 0/2] Fix UAF and null-ptr-deref bugs in rose protocol

[PATCH net 0/2] Fix UAF and null-ptr-deref bugs in rose protocol

[Duoming Zhou]

The first patch fixes the UAF bug of sock caused by
timer. The second patch fixes the null-ptr-deref bug
caused by rose_kill_by_neigh().

Duoming Zhou (2):
  net: rose: fix UAF bugs caused by timer handler
  net: rose: fix null-ptr-deref caused by rose_kill_by_neigh

 net/rose/af_rose.c    |  5 +++++
 net/rose/rose_route.c |  2 ++
 net/rose/rose_timer.c | 22 +++++++++++++---------
 3 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

-- 
2.17.1

[PATCH net 1/2] net: rose: fix UAF bugs caused by timer handler

[Duoming Zhou]

There are UAF bugs in rose_heartbeat_expiry(), rose_timer_expiry()
and rose_idletimer_expiry(). The root cause is that del_timer()
could not stop the timer handler that is running and the refcount
of sock is not managed properly.

One of the UAF bugs is shown below:

    (thread 1)          |        (thread 2)
                        |  rose_bind
                        |  rose_connect
                        |    rose_start_heartbeat
rose_release            |    (wait a time)
  case ROSE_STATE_0     |
  rose_destroy_socket   |  rose_heartbeat_expiry
    rose_stop_heartbeat |
    sock_put(sk)        |    ...
  sock_put(sk) // FREE  |
                        |    bh_lock_sock(sk) // USE

The sock is deallocated by sock_put() in rose_release() and
then used by bh_lock_sock() in rose_heartbeat_expiry().

Although rose_destroy_socket() calls rose_stop_heartbeat(),
it could not stop the timer that is running.

The KASAN report triggered by POC is shown below:

BUG: KASAN: use-after-free in _raw_spin_lock+0x5a/0x110
Write of size 4 at addr ffff88800ae59098 by task swapper/3/0
...
Call Trace:
 <IRQ>
 dump_stack_lvl+0xbf/0xee
 print_address_description+0x7b/0x440
 print_report+0x101/0x230
 ? irq_work_single+0xbb/0x140
 ? _raw_spin_lock+0x5a/0x110
 kasan_report+0xed/0x120
 ? _raw_spin_lock+0x5a/0x110
 kasan_check_range+0x2bd/0x2e0
 _raw_spin_lock+0x5a/0x110
 rose_heartbeat_expiry+0x39/0x370
 ? rose_start_heartbeat+0xb0/0xb0
 call_timer_fn+0x2d/0x1c0
 ? rose_start_heartbeat+0xb0/0xb0
 expire_timers+0x1f3/0x320
 __run_timers+0x3ff/0x4d0
 run_timer_softirq+0x41/0x80
 __do_softirq+0x233/0x544
 irq_exit_rcu+0x41/0xa0
 sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x8c/0xb0
 </IRQ>
 <TASK>
 asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x1b/0x20
RIP: 0010:default_idle+0xb/0x10
RSP: 0018:ffffc9000012fea0 EFLAGS: 00000202
RAX: 000000000000bcae RBX: ffff888006660f00 RCX: 000000000000bcae
RDX: 0000000000000001 RSI: ffffffff843a11c0 RDI: ffffffff843a1180
RBP: dffffc0000000000 R08: dffffc0000000000 R09: ffffed100da36d46
R10: dfffe9100da36d47 R11: ffffffff83cf0950 R12: 0000000000000000
R13: 1ffff11000ccc1e0 R14: ffffffff8542af28 R15: dffffc0000000000
...
Allocated by task 146:
 __kasan_kmalloc+0xc4/0xf0
 sk_prot_alloc+0xdd/0x1a0
 sk_alloc+0x2d/0x4e0
 rose_create+0x7b/0x330
 __sock_create+0x2dd/0x640
 __sys_socket+0xc7/0x270
 __x64_sys_socket+0x71/0x80
 do_syscall_64+0x43/0x90
 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x46/0xb0

Freed by task 152:
 kasan_set_track+0x4c/0x70
 kasan_set_free_info+0x1f/0x40
 ____kasan_slab_free+0x124/0x190
 kfree+0xd3/0x270
 __sk_destruct+0x314/0x460
 rose_release+0x2fa/0x3b0
 sock_close+0xcb/0x230
 __fput+0x2d9/0x650
 task_work_run+0xd6/0x160
 exit_to_user_mode_loop+0xc7/0xd0
 exit_to_user_mode_prepare+0x4e/0x80
 syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x20/0x40
 do_syscall_64+0x4f/0x90
 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x46/0xb0

This patch adds refcount of sock when we use functions
such as rose_start_heartbeat() and so on to start timer,
and decreases the refcount of sock when timer is finished
or deleted by functions such as rose_stop_heartbeat()
and so on. As a result, the UAF bugs could be mitigated.

Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
Signed-off-by: Duoming Zhou <duoming@zju.edu.cn>
Tested-by: Duoming Zhou <duoming@zju.edu.cn>
---
 net/rose/rose_timer.c | 22 +++++++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/rose/rose_timer.c b/net/rose/rose_timer.c
index b3138fc2e55..18d1912520b 100644
--- a/net/rose/rose_timer.c
+++ b/net/rose/rose_timer.c
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ void rose_start_heartbeat(struct sock *sk)
 	sk->sk_timer.function = rose_heartbeat_expiry;
 	sk->sk_timer.expires  = jiffies + 5 * HZ;
 
-	add_timer(&sk->sk_timer);
+	sk_reset_timer(sk, &sk->sk_timer, sk->sk_timer.expires);
 }
 
 void rose_start_t1timer(struct sock *sk)
@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ void rose_start_t1timer(struct sock *sk)
 	rose->timer.function = rose_timer_expiry;
 	rose->timer.expires  = jiffies + rose->t1;
 
-	add_timer(&rose->timer);
+	sk_reset_timer(sk, &rose->timer, rose->timer.expires);
 }
 
 void rose_start_t2timer(struct sock *sk)
@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ void rose_start_t2timer(struct sock *sk)
 	rose->timer.function = rose_timer_expiry;
 	rose->timer.expires  = jiffies + rose->t2;
 
-	add_timer(&rose->timer);
+	sk_reset_timer(sk, &rose->timer, rose->timer.expires);
 }
 
 void rose_start_t3timer(struct sock *sk)
@@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ void rose_start_t3timer(struct sock *sk)
 	rose->timer.function = rose_timer_expiry;
 	rose->timer.expires  = jiffies + rose->t3;
 
-	add_timer(&rose->timer);
+	sk_reset_timer(sk, &rose->timer, rose->timer.expires);
 }
 
 void rose_start_hbtimer(struct sock *sk)
@@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ void rose_start_hbtimer(struct sock *sk)
 	rose->timer.function = rose_timer_expiry;
 	rose->timer.expires  = jiffies + rose->hb;
 
-	add_timer(&rose->timer);
+	sk_reset_timer(sk, &rose->timer, rose->timer.expires);
 }
 
 void rose_start_idletimer(struct sock *sk)
@@ -97,23 +97,23 @@ void rose_start_idletimer(struct sock *sk)
 		rose->idletimer.function = rose_idletimer_expiry;
 		rose->idletimer.expires  = jiffies + rose->idle;
 
-		add_timer(&rose->idletimer);
+		sk_reset_timer(sk, &rose->idletimer, rose->idletimer.expires);
 	}
 }
 
 void rose_stop_heartbeat(struct sock *sk)
 {
-	del_timer(&sk->sk_timer);
+	sk_stop_timer(sk, &sk->sk_timer);
 }
 
 void rose_stop_timer(struct sock *sk)
 {
-	del_timer(&rose_sk(sk)->timer);
+	sk_stop_timer(sk, &rose_sk(sk)->timer);
 }
 
 void rose_stop_idletimer(struct sock *sk)
 {
-	del_timer(&rose_sk(sk)->idletimer);
+	sk_stop_timer(sk, &rose_sk(sk)->idletimer);
 }
 
 static void rose_heartbeat_expiry(struct timer_list *t)
@@ -130,6 +130,7 @@ static void rose_heartbeat_expiry(struct timer_list *t)
 		    (sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN && sock_flag(sk, SOCK_DEAD))) {
 			bh_unlock_sock(sk);
 			rose_destroy_socket(sk);
+			sock_put(sk);
 			return;
 		}
 		break;
@@ -152,6 +153,7 @@ static void rose_heartbeat_expiry(struct timer_list *t)
 
 	rose_start_heartbeat(sk);
 	bh_unlock_sock(sk);
+	sock_put(sk);
 }
 
 static void rose_timer_expiry(struct timer_list *t)
@@ -181,6 +183,7 @@ static void rose_timer_expiry(struct timer_list *t)
 		break;
 	}
 	bh_unlock_sock(sk);
+	sock_put(sk);
 }
 
 static void rose_idletimer_expiry(struct timer_list *t)
@@ -205,4 +208,5 @@ static void rose_idletimer_expiry(struct timer_list *t)
 		sock_set_flag(sk, SOCK_DEAD);
 	}
 	bh_unlock_sock(sk);
+	sock_put(sk);
 }
-- 
2.17.1

[PATCH net 2/2] net: rose: fix null-ptr-deref caused by rose_kill_by_neigh

[Duoming Zhou]

When the link layer connection is broken, the rose->neighbour is
set to null. But rose->neighbour could be used by rose_connection()
and rose_release() later, because there is no synchronization among
them. As a result, the null-ptr-deref bugs will happen.

One of the null-ptr-deref bugs is shown below:

    (thread 1)                  |        (thread 2)
                                |  rose_connect
rose_kill_by_neigh              |    lock_sock(sk)
  spin_lock_bh(&rose_list_lock) |    if (!rose->neighbour)
  rose->neighbour = NULL;//(1)  |
                                |    rose->neighbour->use++;//(2)

The rose->neighbour is set to null in position (1) and dereferenced
in position (2).

The KASAN report triggered by POC is shown below:

KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x0000000000000028-0x000000000000002f]
...
RIP: 0010:rose_connect+0x6c2/0xf30
RSP: 0018:ffff88800ab47d60 EFLAGS: 00000206
RAX: 0000000000000005 RBX: 000000000000002a RCX: 0000000000000000
RDX: ffff88800ab38000 RSI: ffff88800ab47e48 RDI: ffff88800ab38309
RBP: dffffc0000000000 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: ffffed1001567062
R10: dfffe91001567063 R11: 1ffff11001567061 R12: 1ffff11000d17cd0
R13: ffff8880068be680 R14: 0000000000000002 R15: 1ffff11000d17cd0
...
Call Trace:
  <TASK>
  ? __local_bh_enable_ip+0x54/0x80
  ? selinux_netlbl_socket_connect+0x26/0x30
  ? rose_bind+0x5b0/0x5b0
  __sys_connect+0x216/0x280
  __x64_sys_connect+0x71/0x80
  do_syscall_64+0x43/0x90
  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x46/0xb0

This patch adds lock_sock() in rose_kill_by_neigh() in order to
synchronize with rose_connect() and rose_release().

Meanwhile, this patch adds sock_hold() protected by rose_list_lock
that could synchronize with rose_remove_socket() in order to mitigate
UAF bug caused by lock_sock() we add.

What's more, there is no need using rose_neigh_list_lock to protect
rose_kill_by_neigh(). Because we have already used rose_neigh_list_lock
to protect the state change of rose_neigh in rose_link_failed(), which
is well synchronized.

Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
Signed-off-by: Duoming Zhou <duoming@zju.edu.cn>
---
 net/rose/af_rose.c    | 5 +++++
 net/rose/rose_route.c | 2 ++
 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+)

diff --git a/net/rose/af_rose.c b/net/rose/af_rose.c
index bf2d986a6bc..dece637e274 100644
--- a/net/rose/af_rose.c
+++ b/net/rose/af_rose.c
@@ -169,9 +169,14 @@ void rose_kill_by_neigh(struct rose_neigh *neigh)
 		struct rose_sock *rose = rose_sk(s);
 
 		if (rose->neighbour == neigh) {
+			sock_hold(s);
 			rose_disconnect(s, ENETUNREACH, ROSE_OUT_OF_ORDER, 0);
 			rose->neighbour->use--;
+			spin_unlock_bh(&rose_list_lock);
+			lock_sock(s);
 			rose->neighbour = NULL;
+			release_sock(s);
+			spin_lock_bh(&rose_list_lock);
 		}
 	}
 	spin_unlock_bh(&rose_list_lock);
diff --git a/net/rose/rose_route.c b/net/rose/rose_route.c
index fee6409c2bb..b116828b422 100644
--- a/net/rose/rose_route.c
+++ b/net/rose/rose_route.c
@@ -827,7 +827,9 @@ void rose_link_failed(ax25_cb *ax25, int reason)
 		ax25_cb_put(ax25);
 
 		rose_del_route_by_neigh(rose_neigh);
+		spin_unlock_bh(&rose_neigh_list_lock);
 		rose_kill_by_neigh(rose_neigh);
+		return;
 	}
 	spin_unlock_bh(&rose_neigh_list_lock);
 }
-- 
2.17.1

Re: [PATCH net 1/2] net: rose: fix UAF bugs caused by timer handler

[Paolo Abeni]

On Wed, 2022-06-22 at 12:01 +0800, Duoming Zhou wrote:
> There are UAF bugs in rose_heartbeat_expiry(), rose_timer_expiry()
> and rose_idletimer_expiry(). The root cause is that del_timer()
> could not stop the timer handler that is running and the refcount
> of sock is not managed properly.
> 
> One of the UAF bugs is shown below:
> 
>     (thread 1)          |        (thread 2)
>                         |  rose_bind
>                         |  rose_connect
>                         |    rose_start_heartbeat
> rose_release            |    (wait a time)
>   case ROSE_STATE_0     |
>   rose_destroy_socket   |  rose_heartbeat_expiry
>     rose_stop_heartbeat |
>     sock_put(sk)        |    ...
>   sock_put(sk) // FREE  |
>                         |    bh_lock_sock(sk) // USE
> 
> The sock is deallocated by sock_put() in rose_release() and
> then used by bh_lock_sock() in rose_heartbeat_expiry().
> 
> Although rose_destroy_socket() calls rose_stop_heartbeat(),
> it could not stop the timer that is running.
> 
> The KASAN report triggered by POC is shown below:
> 
> BUG: KASAN: use-after-free in _raw_spin_lock+0x5a/0x110
> Write of size 4 at addr ffff88800ae59098 by task swapper/3/0
> ...
> Call Trace:
>  <IRQ>
>  dump_stack_lvl+0xbf/0xee
>  print_address_description+0x7b/0x440
>  print_report+0x101/0x230
>  ? irq_work_single+0xbb/0x140
>  ? _raw_spin_lock+0x5a/0x110
>  kasan_report+0xed/0x120
>  ? _raw_spin_lock+0x5a/0x110
>  kasan_check_range+0x2bd/0x2e0
>  _raw_spin_lock+0x5a/0x110
>  rose_heartbeat_expiry+0x39/0x370
>  ? rose_start_heartbeat+0xb0/0xb0
>  call_timer_fn+0x2d/0x1c0
>  ? rose_start_heartbeat+0xb0/0xb0
>  expire_timers+0x1f3/0x320
>  __run_timers+0x3ff/0x4d0
>  run_timer_softirq+0x41/0x80
>  __do_softirq+0x233/0x544
>  irq_exit_rcu+0x41/0xa0
>  sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x8c/0xb0
>  </IRQ>
>  <TASK>
>  asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x1b/0x20
> RIP: 0010:default_idle+0xb/0x10
> RSP: 0018:ffffc9000012fea0 EFLAGS: 00000202
> RAX: 000000000000bcae RBX: ffff888006660f00 RCX: 000000000000bcae
> RDX: 0000000000000001 RSI: ffffffff843a11c0 RDI: ffffffff843a1180
> RBP: dffffc0000000000 R08: dffffc0000000000 R09: ffffed100da36d46
> R10: dfffe9100da36d47 R11: ffffffff83cf0950 R12: 0000000000000000
> R13: 1ffff11000ccc1e0 R14: ffffffff8542af28 R15: dffffc0000000000
> ...
> Allocated by task 146:
>  __kasan_kmalloc+0xc4/0xf0
>  sk_prot_alloc+0xdd/0x1a0
>  sk_alloc+0x2d/0x4e0
>  rose_create+0x7b/0x330
>  __sock_create+0x2dd/0x640
>  __sys_socket+0xc7/0x270
>  __x64_sys_socket+0x71/0x80
>  do_syscall_64+0x43/0x90
>  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x46/0xb0
> 
> Freed by task 152:
>  kasan_set_track+0x4c/0x70
>  kasan_set_free_info+0x1f/0x40
>  ____kasan_slab_free+0x124/0x190
>  kfree+0xd3/0x270
>  __sk_destruct+0x314/0x460
>  rose_release+0x2fa/0x3b0
>  sock_close+0xcb/0x230
>  __fput+0x2d9/0x650
>  task_work_run+0xd6/0x160
>  exit_to_user_mode_loop+0xc7/0xd0
>  exit_to_user_mode_prepare+0x4e/0x80
>  syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x20/0x40
>  do_syscall_64+0x4f/0x90
>  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x46/0xb0
> 
> This patch adds refcount of sock when we use functions
> such as rose_start_heartbeat() and so on to start timer,
> and decreases the refcount of sock when timer is finished
> or deleted by functions such as rose_stop_heartbeat()
> and so on. As a result, the UAF bugs could be mitigated.
> 
> Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
> Signed-off-by: Duoming Zhou <duoming@zju.edu.cn>
> Tested-by: Duoming Zhou <duoming@zju.edu.cn>
> ---
>  net/rose/rose_timer.c | 22 +++++++++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/rose/rose_timer.c b/net/rose/rose_timer.c
> index b3138fc2e55..18d1912520b 100644
> --- a/net/rose/rose_timer.c
> +++ b/net/rose/rose_timer.c
> @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ void rose_start_heartbeat(struct sock *sk)
>  	sk->sk_timer.function = rose_heartbeat_expiry;
>  	sk->sk_timer.expires  = jiffies + 5 * HZ;
>  
> -	add_timer(&sk->sk_timer);
> +	sk_reset_timer(sk, &sk->sk_timer, sk->sk_timer.expires);
>  }
>  
>  void rose_start_t1timer(struct sock *sk)
> @@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ void rose_start_t1timer(struct sock *sk)
>  	rose->timer.function = rose_timer_expiry;
>  	rose->timer.expires  = jiffies + rose->t1;
>  
> -	add_timer(&rose->timer);
> +	sk_reset_timer(sk, &rose->timer, rose->timer.expires);
>  }
>  
>  void rose_start_t2timer(struct sock *sk)
> @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ void rose_start_t2timer(struct sock *sk)
>  	rose->timer.function = rose_timer_expiry;
>  	rose->timer.expires  = jiffies + rose->t2;
>  
> -	add_timer(&rose->timer);
> +	sk_reset_timer(sk, &rose->timer, rose->timer.expires);
>  }
>  
>  void rose_start_t3timer(struct sock *sk)
> @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ void rose_start_t3timer(struct sock *sk)
>  	rose->timer.function = rose_timer_expiry;
>  	rose->timer.expires  = jiffies + rose->t3;
>  
> -	add_timer(&rose->timer);
> +	sk_reset_timer(sk, &rose->timer, rose->timer.expires);
>  }
>  
>  void rose_start_hbtimer(struct sock *sk)
> @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ void rose_start_hbtimer(struct sock *sk)
>  	rose->timer.function = rose_timer_expiry;
>  	rose->timer.expires  = jiffies + rose->hb;
>  
> -	add_timer(&rose->timer);
> +	sk_reset_timer(sk, &rose->timer, rose->timer.expires);
>  }
>  
>  void rose_start_idletimer(struct sock *sk)
> @@ -97,23 +97,23 @@ void rose_start_idletimer(struct sock *sk)
>  		rose->idletimer.function = rose_idletimer_expiry;
>  		rose->idletimer.expires  = jiffies + rose->idle;
>  
> -		add_timer(&rose->idletimer);
> +		sk_reset_timer(sk, &rose->idletimer, rose->idletimer.expires);

A few lines above there is still a 'del_timer(&rose->idletimer);' call
which must be converted to sk_stop_timer(), otherwise there will be a
possible sk reference leak.

There are other del_timer(&rose->timer) that need conversion.

Thanks

Paolo

Re: [PATCH net 2/2] net: rose: fix null-ptr-deref caused by rose_kill_by_neigh

[Paolo Abeni]

On Wed, 2022-06-22 at 12:01 +0800, Duoming Zhou wrote:
> When the link layer connection is broken, the rose->neighbour is
> set to null. But rose->neighbour could be used by rose_connection()
> and rose_release() later, because there is no synchronization among
> them. As a result, the null-ptr-deref bugs will happen.
> 
> One of the null-ptr-deref bugs is shown below:
> 
>     (thread 1)                  |        (thread 2)
>                                 |  rose_connect
> rose_kill_by_neigh              |    lock_sock(sk)
>   spin_lock_bh(&rose_list_lock) |    if (!rose->neighbour)
>   rose->neighbour = NULL;//(1)  |
>                                 |    rose->neighbour->use++;//(2)
> 
> The rose->neighbour is set to null in position (1) and dereferenced
> in position (2).
> 
> The KASAN report triggered by POC is shown below:
> 
> KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x0000000000000028-0x000000000000002f]
> ...
> RIP: 0010:rose_connect+0x6c2/0xf30
> RSP: 0018:ffff88800ab47d60 EFLAGS: 00000206
> RAX: 0000000000000005 RBX: 000000000000002a RCX: 0000000000000000
> RDX: ffff88800ab38000 RSI: ffff88800ab47e48 RDI: ffff88800ab38309
> RBP: dffffc0000000000 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: ffffed1001567062
> R10: dfffe91001567063 R11: 1ffff11001567061 R12: 1ffff11000d17cd0
> R13: ffff8880068be680 R14: 0000000000000002 R15: 1ffff11000d17cd0
> ...
> Call Trace:
>   <TASK>
>   ? __local_bh_enable_ip+0x54/0x80
>   ? selinux_netlbl_socket_connect+0x26/0x30
>   ? rose_bind+0x5b0/0x5b0
>   __sys_connect+0x216/0x280
>   __x64_sys_connect+0x71/0x80
>   do_syscall_64+0x43/0x90
>   entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x46/0xb0
> 
> This patch adds lock_sock() in rose_kill_by_neigh() in order to
> synchronize with rose_connect() and rose_release().
> 
> Meanwhile, this patch adds sock_hold() protected by rose_list_lock
> that could synchronize with rose_remove_socket() in order to mitigate
> UAF bug caused by lock_sock() we add.
> 
> What's more, there is no need using rose_neigh_list_lock to protect
> rose_kill_by_neigh(). Because we have already used rose_neigh_list_lock
> to protect the state change of rose_neigh in rose_link_failed(), which
> is well synchronized.
> 
> Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
> Signed-off-by: Duoming Zhou <duoming@zju.edu.cn>
> ---
>  net/rose/af_rose.c    | 5 +++++
>  net/rose/rose_route.c | 2 ++
>  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/net/rose/af_rose.c b/net/rose/af_rose.c
> index bf2d986a6bc..dece637e274 100644
> --- a/net/rose/af_rose.c
> +++ b/net/rose/af_rose.c
> @@ -169,9 +169,14 @@ void rose_kill_by_neigh(struct rose_neigh *neigh)
>  		struct rose_sock *rose = rose_sk(s);
>  
>  		if (rose->neighbour == neigh) {
> +			sock_hold(s);
>  			rose_disconnect(s, ENETUNREACH, ROSE_OUT_OF_ORDER, 0);
>  			rose->neighbour->use--;
> +			spin_unlock_bh(&rose_list_lock);

You can't release the lock protecting the list traversal, then re-
acquire it and keep traversing using the same iterator. The list could
be modified in-between.

Instead you could build a local list containing the relevant sockets
(under the rose_list_lock protection), additionally acquiring a
reference to each of them

Then traverse such list outside the rose_list_lock, acquire the socket
lock on each of them, do the neigh clearing and release the reference.

Doing the above right is still fairly non trivial.

/P

Re: [PATCH net 2/2] net: rose: fix null-ptr-deref caused by rose_kill_by_neigh

[duoming]

Hello,

On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 11:30:04 +0200 Paolo Abeni wrote:

> > When the link layer connection is broken, the rose->neighbour is
> > set to null. But rose->neighbour could be used by rose_connection()
> > and rose_release() later, because there is no synchronization among
> > them. As a result, the null-ptr-deref bugs will happen.
> > 
> > One of the null-ptr-deref bugs is shown below:
> > 
> >     (thread 1)                  |        (thread 2)
> >                                 |  rose_connect
> > rose_kill_by_neigh              |    lock_sock(sk)
> >   spin_lock_bh(&rose_list_lock) |    if (!rose->neighbour)
> >   rose->neighbour = NULL;//(1)  |
> >                                 |    rose->neighbour->use++;//(2)
> > 
> > The rose->neighbour is set to null in position (1) and dereferenced
> > in position (2).
> > 
> > The KASAN report triggered by POC is shown below:
> > 
> > KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x0000000000000028-0x000000000000002f]
> > ...
> > RIP: 0010:rose_connect+0x6c2/0xf30
> > RSP: 0018:ffff88800ab47d60 EFLAGS: 00000206
> > RAX: 0000000000000005 RBX: 000000000000002a RCX: 0000000000000000
> > RDX: ffff88800ab38000 RSI: ffff88800ab47e48 RDI: ffff88800ab38309
> > RBP: dffffc0000000000 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: ffffed1001567062
> > R10: dfffe91001567063 R11: 1ffff11001567061 R12: 1ffff11000d17cd0
> > R13: ffff8880068be680 R14: 0000000000000002 R15: 1ffff11000d17cd0
> > ...
> > Call Trace:
> >   <TASK>
> >   ? __local_bh_enable_ip+0x54/0x80
> >   ? selinux_netlbl_socket_connect+0x26/0x30
> >   ? rose_bind+0x5b0/0x5b0
> >   __sys_connect+0x216/0x280
> >   __x64_sys_connect+0x71/0x80
> >   do_syscall_64+0x43/0x90
> >   entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x46/0xb0
> > 
> > This patch adds lock_sock() in rose_kill_by_neigh() in order to
> > synchronize with rose_connect() and rose_release().
> > 
> > Meanwhile, this patch adds sock_hold() protected by rose_list_lock
> > that could synchronize with rose_remove_socket() in order to mitigate
> > UAF bug caused by lock_sock() we add.
> > 
> > What's more, there is no need using rose_neigh_list_lock to protect
> > rose_kill_by_neigh(). Because we have already used rose_neigh_list_lock
> > to protect the state change of rose_neigh in rose_link_failed(), which
> > is well synchronized.
> > 
> > Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
> > Signed-off-by: Duoming Zhou <duoming@zju.edu.cn>
> > ---
> >  net/rose/af_rose.c    | 5 +++++
> >  net/rose/rose_route.c | 2 ++
> >  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/net/rose/af_rose.c b/net/rose/af_rose.c
> > index bf2d986a6bc..dece637e274 100644
> > --- a/net/rose/af_rose.c
> > +++ b/net/rose/af_rose.c
> > @@ -169,9 +169,14 @@ void rose_kill_by_neigh(struct rose_neigh *neigh)
> >  		struct rose_sock *rose = rose_sk(s);
> >  
> >  		if (rose->neighbour == neigh) {
> > +			sock_hold(s);
> >  			rose_disconnect(s, ENETUNREACH, ROSE_OUT_OF_ORDER, 0);
> >  			rose->neighbour->use--;
> > +			spin_unlock_bh(&rose_list_lock);
> 
> You can't release the lock protecting the list traversal, then re-
> acquire it and keep traversing using the same iterator. The list could
> be modified in-between.

I think release the lock and then reacquire it is ok. Because we have held the
refcount of sock and called rose_disconnect() to change the state of sock with
the protection of rose_list_lock which could synchronize with rose_destroy_socket().

If the sock is removed from the list by rose_destroy_socket(), there is
no rose->neighbour equals to neigh and the rose_kill_by_neigh() will return.

If there is a rose->neighbour equals to neigh, we held the refcount of sock
and called the rose_disconnect() to change the state of it with the protection
of rose_list_lock. Even if the sock could be removed from the rose_list by
rose_destroy_socket() during the time of unlocking, but the sock will not be 
deallocated because we have held the refcount of sock. When we reacquire the 
rose_list_lock, we only do sock_put() in order to deallocate the sock.

@@ -169,9 +169,15 @@ void rose_kill_by_neigh(struct rose_neigh *neigh)
                struct rose_sock *rose = rose_sk(s);
 
                if (rose->neighbour == neigh) {
+                       sock_hold(s);
                        rose_disconnect(s, ENETUNREACH, ROSE_OUT_OF_ORDER, 0);
                        rose->neighbour->use--;
+                       spin_unlock_bh(&rose_list_lock);
+                       lock_sock(s);
                        rose->neighbour = NULL;
+                       release_sock(s);
+                       spin_lock_bh(&rose_list_lock);
+                       sock_put(s);
                }
        }
        spin_unlock_bh(&rose_list_lock);

> Instead you could build a local list containing the relevant sockets
> (under the rose_list_lock protection), additionally acquiring a
> reference to each of them
> 
> Then traverse such list outside the rose_list_lock, acquire the socket
> lock on each of them, do the neigh clearing and release the reference.

If we build a local list contain the relevant sockets and only acquire a reference
to each of them with the protection of rose_list_lock, the socket could be removed
by rose_destroy_socket() after we release the rose_list_lock. Then if we traverse 
such list outside the rose_list_lock we could not find the socket, as a result,
the neigh clearing and the refcount releasing operations will not be executed.

Best regards,
Duoming Zhou

Re: [PATCH net 1/2] net: rose: fix UAF bugs caused by timer handler

[duoming]

Hello,

On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 11:13:41 +0200 Paolo Abeni wrote:

> > There are UAF bugs in rose_heartbeat_expiry(), rose_timer_expiry()
> > and rose_idletimer_expiry(). The root cause is that del_timer()
> > could not stop the timer handler that is running and the refcount
> > of sock is not managed properly.
> > 
> > One of the UAF bugs is shown below:
> > 
> >     (thread 1)          |        (thread 2)
> >                         |  rose_bind
> >                         |  rose_connect
> >                         |    rose_start_heartbeat
> > rose_release            |    (wait a time)
> >   case ROSE_STATE_0     |
> >   rose_destroy_socket   |  rose_heartbeat_expiry
> >     rose_stop_heartbeat |
> >     sock_put(sk)        |    ...
> >   sock_put(sk) // FREE  |
> >                         |    bh_lock_sock(sk) // USE
> > 
> > The sock is deallocated by sock_put() in rose_release() and
> > then used by bh_lock_sock() in rose_heartbeat_expiry().
> > 
> > Although rose_destroy_socket() calls rose_stop_heartbeat(),
> > it could not stop the timer that is running.
> > 
> > The KASAN report triggered by POC is shown below:
> > 
> > BUG: KASAN: use-after-free in _raw_spin_lock+0x5a/0x110
> > Write of size 4 at addr ffff88800ae59098 by task swapper/3/0
> > ...
> > Call Trace:
> >  <IRQ>
> >  dump_stack_lvl+0xbf/0xee
> >  print_address_description+0x7b/0x440
> >  print_report+0x101/0x230
> >  ? irq_work_single+0xbb/0x140
> >  ? _raw_spin_lock+0x5a/0x110
> >  kasan_report+0xed/0x120
> >  ? _raw_spin_lock+0x5a/0x110
> >  kasan_check_range+0x2bd/0x2e0
> >  _raw_spin_lock+0x5a/0x110
> >  rose_heartbeat_expiry+0x39/0x370
> >  ? rose_start_heartbeat+0xb0/0xb0
> >  call_timer_fn+0x2d/0x1c0
> >  ? rose_start_heartbeat+0xb0/0xb0
> >  expire_timers+0x1f3/0x320
> >  __run_timers+0x3ff/0x4d0
> >  run_timer_softirq+0x41/0x80
> >  __do_softirq+0x233/0x544
> >  irq_exit_rcu+0x41/0xa0
> >  sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x8c/0xb0
> >  </IRQ>
> >  <TASK>
> >  asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x1b/0x20
> > RIP: 0010:default_idle+0xb/0x10
> > RSP: 0018:ffffc9000012fea0 EFLAGS: 00000202
> > RAX: 000000000000bcae RBX: ffff888006660f00 RCX: 000000000000bcae
> > RDX: 0000000000000001 RSI: ffffffff843a11c0 RDI: ffffffff843a1180
> > RBP: dffffc0000000000 R08: dffffc0000000000 R09: ffffed100da36d46
> > R10: dfffe9100da36d47 R11: ffffffff83cf0950 R12: 0000000000000000
> > R13: 1ffff11000ccc1e0 R14: ffffffff8542af28 R15: dffffc0000000000
> > ...
> > Allocated by task 146:
> >  __kasan_kmalloc+0xc4/0xf0
> >  sk_prot_alloc+0xdd/0x1a0
> >  sk_alloc+0x2d/0x4e0
> >  rose_create+0x7b/0x330
> >  __sock_create+0x2dd/0x640
> >  __sys_socket+0xc7/0x270
> >  __x64_sys_socket+0x71/0x80
> >  do_syscall_64+0x43/0x90
> >  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x46/0xb0
> > 
> > Freed by task 152:
> >  kasan_set_track+0x4c/0x70
> >  kasan_set_free_info+0x1f/0x40
> >  ____kasan_slab_free+0x124/0x190
> >  kfree+0xd3/0x270
> >  __sk_destruct+0x314/0x460
> >  rose_release+0x2fa/0x3b0
> >  sock_close+0xcb/0x230
> >  __fput+0x2d9/0x650
> >  task_work_run+0xd6/0x160
> >  exit_to_user_mode_loop+0xc7/0xd0
> >  exit_to_user_mode_prepare+0x4e/0x80
> >  syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x20/0x40
> >  do_syscall_64+0x4f/0x90
> >  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x46/0xb0
> > 
> > This patch adds refcount of sock when we use functions
> > such as rose_start_heartbeat() and so on to start timer,
> > and decreases the refcount of sock when timer is finished
> > or deleted by functions such as rose_stop_heartbeat()
> > and so on. As a result, the UAF bugs could be mitigated.
> > 
> > Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
> > Signed-off-by: Duoming Zhou <duoming@zju.edu.cn>
> > Tested-by: Duoming Zhou <duoming@zju.edu.cn>
> > ---
> >  net/rose/rose_timer.c | 22 +++++++++++++---------
> >  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/net/rose/rose_timer.c b/net/rose/rose_timer.c
> > index b3138fc2e55..18d1912520b 100644
> > --- a/net/rose/rose_timer.c
> > +++ b/net/rose/rose_timer.c
> > @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ void rose_start_heartbeat(struct sock *sk)
> >  	sk->sk_timer.function = rose_heartbeat_expiry;
> >  	sk->sk_timer.expires  = jiffies + 5 * HZ;
> >  
> > -	add_timer(&sk->sk_timer);
> > +	sk_reset_timer(sk, &sk->sk_timer, sk->sk_timer.expires);
> >  }
> >  
> >  void rose_start_t1timer(struct sock *sk)
> > @@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ void rose_start_t1timer(struct sock *sk)
> >  	rose->timer.function = rose_timer_expiry;
> >  	rose->timer.expires  = jiffies + rose->t1;
> >  
> > -	add_timer(&rose->timer);
> > +	sk_reset_timer(sk, &rose->timer, rose->timer.expires);
> >  }
> >  
> >  void rose_start_t2timer(struct sock *sk)
> > @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ void rose_start_t2timer(struct sock *sk)
> >  	rose->timer.function = rose_timer_expiry;
> >  	rose->timer.expires  = jiffies + rose->t2;
> >  
> > -	add_timer(&rose->timer);
> > +	sk_reset_timer(sk, &rose->timer, rose->timer.expires);
> >  }
> >  
> >  void rose_start_t3timer(struct sock *sk)
> > @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ void rose_start_t3timer(struct sock *sk)
> >  	rose->timer.function = rose_timer_expiry;
> >  	rose->timer.expires  = jiffies + rose->t3;
> >  
> > -	add_timer(&rose->timer);
> > +	sk_reset_timer(sk, &rose->timer, rose->timer.expires);
> >  }
> >  
> >  void rose_start_hbtimer(struct sock *sk)
> > @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ void rose_start_hbtimer(struct sock *sk)
> >  	rose->timer.function = rose_timer_expiry;
> >  	rose->timer.expires  = jiffies + rose->hb;
> >  
> > -	add_timer(&rose->timer);
> > +	sk_reset_timer(sk, &rose->timer, rose->timer.expires);
> >  }
> >  
> >  void rose_start_idletimer(struct sock *sk)
> > @@ -97,23 +97,23 @@ void rose_start_idletimer(struct sock *sk)
> >  		rose->idletimer.function = rose_idletimer_expiry;
> >  		rose->idletimer.expires  = jiffies + rose->idle;
> >  
> > -		add_timer(&rose->idletimer);
> > +		sk_reset_timer(sk, &rose->idletimer, rose->idletimer.expires);
> 
> A few lines above there is still a 'del_timer(&rose->idletimer);' call
> which must be converted to sk_stop_timer(), otherwise there will be a
> possible sk reference leak.
> 
> There are other del_timer(&rose->timer) that need conversion.

Thank you for your time and suggestions! I will convert 'del_timer(&rose->idletimer);'
and so on to sk_stop_timer().

Best regards,
Duoming Zhou