在 2021/7/19 15:48, Hillf Danton 写道:
On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 10:49:37 +0800 Wang ShaoBo wrote:
use-after-free error in lock_sock_nested is reported:
There are similar reports from syzbot.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/000000000000f335f205b5649c70@xxxxxxxxxx/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/000000000000c4fd0405b6cc8e53@xxxxxxxxxx/
[ 179.140137][ T3731] =====================================================
[ 179.142675][ T3731] BUG: KMSAN: use-after-free in lock_sock_nested+0x280/0x2c0
[ 179.145494][ T3731] CPU: 4 PID: 3731 Comm: kworker/4:2 Not tainted 5.12.0-rc6+ #54
[ 179.148432][ T3731] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.13.0-1ubuntu1.1 04/01/2014
[ 179.151806][ T3731] Workqueue: events l2cap_chan_timeout
[ 179.152730][ T3731] Call Trace:
[ 179.153301][ T3731] dump_stack+0x24c/0x2e0
[ 179.154063][ T3731] kmsan_report+0xfb/0x1e0
[ 179.154855][ T3731] __msan_warning+0x5c/0xa0
[ 179.155579][ T3731] lock_sock_nested+0x280/0x2c0
[ 179.156436][ T3731] ? kmsan_get_metadata+0x116/0x180
[ 179.157257][ T3731] l2cap_sock_teardown_cb+0xb8/0x890
[ 179.158154][ T3731] ? __msan_metadata_ptr_for_load_8+0x10/0x20
[ 179.159141][ T3731] ? kmsan_get_metadata+0x116/0x180
[ 179.159994][ T3731] ? kmsan_get_shadow_origin_ptr+0x84/0xb0
[ 179.160959][ T3731] ? l2cap_sock_recv_cb+0x420/0x420
[ 179.161834][ T3731] l2cap_chan_del+0x3e1/0x1d50
[ 179.162608][ T3731] ? kmsan_get_metadata+0x116/0x180
[ 179.163435][ T3731] ? kmsan_get_shadow_origin_ptr+0x84/0xb0
[ 179.164406][ T3731] l2cap_chan_close+0xeea/0x1050
[ 179.165189][ T3731] ? kmsan_internal_unpoison_shadow+0x42/0x70
[ 179.166180][ T3731] l2cap_chan_timeout+0x1da/0x590
[ 179.167066][ T3731] ? __msan_metadata_ptr_for_load_8+0x10/0x20
[ 179.168023][ T3731] ? l2cap_chan_create+0x560/0x560
[ 179.168818][ T3731] process_one_work+0x121d/0x1ff0
[ 179.169598][ T3731] worker_thread+0x121b/0x2370
[ 179.170346][ T3731] kthread+0x4ef/0x610
[ 179.171010][ T3731] ? process_one_work+0x1ff0/0x1ff0
[ 179.171828][ T3731] ? kthread_blkcg+0x110/0x110
[ 179.172587][ T3731] ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
[ 179.173348][ T3731]
[ 179.173752][ T3731] Uninit was created at:
[ 179.174409][ T3731] kmsan_internal_poison_shadow+0x5c/0xf0
[ 179.175373][ T3731] kmsan_slab_free+0x76/0xc0
[ 179.176060][ T3731] kfree+0x3a5/0x1180
[ 179.176664][ T3731] __sk_destruct+0x8af/0xb80
[ 179.177375][ T3731] __sk_free+0x812/0x8c0
[ 179.178032][ T3731] sk_free+0x97/0x130
[ 179.178686][ T3731] l2cap_sock_release+0x3d5/0x4d0
[ 179.179457][ T3731] sock_close+0x150/0x450
[ 179.180117][ T3731] __fput+0x6bd/0xf00
[ 179.180787][ T3731] ____fput+0x37/0x40
[ 179.181481][ T3731] task_work_run+0x140/0x280
[ 179.182219][ T3731] do_exit+0xe51/0x3e60
[ 179.182930][ T3731] do_group_exit+0x20e/0x450
[ 179.183656][ T3731] get_signal+0x2dfb/0x38f0
[ 179.184344][ T3731] arch_do_signal_or_restart+0xaa/0xe10
[ 179.185266][ T3731] exit_to_user_mode_prepare+0x2d2/0x560
[ 179.186136][ T3731] syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x35/0x60
[ 179.186984][ T3731] do_syscall_64+0xc5/0x140
[ 179.187681][ T3731] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
[ 179.188604][ T3731] =====================================================
In our case, there are two Thread A and B:
Context: Thread A: Context: Thread B:
l2cap_chan_timeout() __se_sys_shutdown()
l2cap_chan_close() l2cap_sock_shutdown()
l2cap_chan_del() l2cap_chan_close()
l2cap_sock_teardown_cb() l2cap_sock_teardown_cb()
Once l2cap_sock_teardown_cb() excuted, this sock will be marked as SOCK_ZAPPED,
and can be treated as killable in l2cap_sock_kill() if sock_orphan() has
excuted, at this time we close sock through sock_close() which end to call
l2cap_sock_kill() like Thread C:
Context: Thread C:
sock_close()
l2cap_sock_release()
sock_orphan()
l2cap_sock_kill() #free sock if refcnt is 1
If C completed, Once A or B reaches l2cap_sock_teardown_cb() again,
use-after-free happened.
We should set chan->data to NULL if sock is destructed, for telling teardown
operation is not allowed in l2cap_sock_teardown_cb(), and also we should
Alternatively ensure it is safe to invoke the teardown cb by holding extra
grab to sock, see diff below,
avoid killing an already killed socket in l2cap_sock_close_cb().
with an eye on double kill.
Signed-off-by: Wang ShaoBo <bobo.shaobowang@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
v2:
put chan->data = NULL in l2cap_socl_destruct(), this refers to
Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@xxxxxxxxx>'s proposal.
---
net/bluetooth/l2cap_sock.c | 10 +++++++++-
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/net/bluetooth/l2cap_sock.c b/net/bluetooth/l2cap_sock.c
index c99d65ef13b1..160c016a5dfb 100644
--- a/net/bluetooth/l2cap_sock.c
+++ b/net/bluetooth/l2cap_sock.c
@@ -1508,6 +1508,9 @@ static void l2cap_sock_close_cb(struct l2cap_chan *chan)
{
struct sock *sk = chan->data;
+ if (!sk)
+ return;
+
l2cap_sock_kill(sk);
}
@@ -1516,6 +1519,9 @@ static void l2cap_sock_teardown_cb(struct l2cap_chan *chan, int err)
struct sock *sk = chan->data;
struct sock *parent;
+ if (!sk)
+ return;
+
BT_DBG("chan %p state %s", chan, state_to_string(chan->state));
/* This callback can be called both for server (BT_LISTEN)
@@ -1707,8 +1713,10 @@ static void l2cap_sock_destruct(struct sock *sk)
{
BT_DBG("sk %p", sk);
- if (l2cap_pi(sk)->chan)
+ if (l2cap_pi(sk)->chan) {
+ l2cap_pi(sk)->chan->data = NULL;
l2cap_chan_put(l2cap_pi(sk)->chan);
+ }
if (l2cap_pi(sk)->rx_busy_skb) {
kfree_skb(l2cap_pi(sk)->rx_busy_skb);
--
2.27.0
Hold sock until it is killed to make l2cap callbacks safe.
Now only for thoughts.
+++ x/net/bluetooth/l2cap_sock.c
@@ -1509,6 +1509,8 @@ static void l2cap_sock_close_cb(struct l
struct sock *sk = chan->data;
l2cap_sock_kill(sk);
+ /* put the extra hold in l2cap_sock_init() */
+ sock_put(sk);
}
static void l2cap_sock_teardown_cb(struct l2cap_chan *chan, int err)
@@ -1794,6 +1796,8 @@ static void l2cap_sock_init(struct sock
/* Default config options */
chan->flush_to = L2CAP_DEFAULT_FLUSH_TO;
+ /* will be put in l2cap_sock_close_cb() */
+ sock_hold(sk);
chan->data = sk;
chan->ops = &l2cap_chan_ops;
}
.
Dear Danton，
I have tried this before, this will trigger error "underflow of refcount
of chan" as following:
[ 118.708179][ T3086] ------------[ cut here ]------------
[ 118.710172][ T3086] refcount_t: underflow; use-after-free.
[ 118.713391][ T3086] WARNING: CPU: 4 PID: 3086 at lib/refcount.c:28
refcount_warn_saturate+0x30a/0x3c0
[ 118.716774][ T3086] Modules linked in:
[ 118.718279][ T3086] CPU: 4 PID: 3086 Comm: kworker/4:2 Not tainted
5.12.0-rc6+ #84
[ 118.721005][ T3086] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX,
1996), BIOS 1.13.0-1ubuntu1.1 04/01/2014
[ 118.722846][ T3086] Workqueue: events l2cap_chan_timeout
[ 118.723786][ T3086] RIP: 0010:refcount_warn_saturate+0x30a/0x3c0
...
[ 118.737912][ T3086] CR2: 0000000020000040 CR3: 0000000011029000 CR4:
00000000000006e0
[ 118.739187][ T3086] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2:
0000000000000000
[ 118.740451][ T3086] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7:
0000000000000400
[ 118.741720][ T3086] Call Trace:
[ 118.742262][ T3086] l2cap_sock_close_cb+0x165/0x170
[ 118.743124][ T3086] ? l2cap_sock_teardown_cb+0x560/0x560
Actually, if adding sock_hold(sk) in l2cap_sock_init(),
l2cap_sock_kill() will continue to excute untill it found
now chan's refcount is 0, this is because sock was not freed in last
round execution of l2cap_sock_kill().
this method also makes l2cap_sock_init()'s logic more difficult to
understand, we have set refcount
of sock to 1 when allocating it, why do we need hold it again ?
-- Wang ShaoBo
