On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 3:50 PM Martijn Coenen <maco@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 2:04 PM Jann Horn <jannh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > - task B opens /dev/binder once, creating binder_proc instance P3
> > - P3 calls P2 (via magic handle 0) with (void*)1 as argument (two-way
> > transaction)
> > - P2 receives the handle and uses it to call P3 (two-way transaction)
> > - P3 calls P2 (via magic handle 0) (two-way transaction)
> > - P2 calls P2 (via handle 1) (two-way transaction)
>
> Why do you need P3 involved at all? Could P2 just straight away make a
> call on handle 1?
Yes, it could, I think. IIRC these steps are necessary if you want to
actually get a KASAN splat, instead of just a transaction-to-self with
no further consequences. It has been a while since I looked at this,
but I'll try to figure out again what was going on...
A UAF occurs in the following code due to the transaction-to-self,
because the "if (t->to_thread == thread)" is tricked into believing
that the transaction has already been accepted.
static int binder_thread_release(struct binder_proc *proc,
struct binder_thread *thread)
{
struct binder_transaction *t;
struct binder_transaction *send_reply = NULL;
[...]
t = thread->transaction_stack;
if (t) {
[...]
if (t->to_thread == thread)
send_reply = t;
} else {
[...]
}
[...]
//NOTE: transaction is freed here because top-of-stack is
// wrongly treated as already-accepted incoming transaction)
if (send_reply)
binder_send_failed_reply(send_reply, BR_DEAD_REPLY);
//NOTE pending transaction work is processed here (transaction has not
// yet been accepted)
binder_release_work(proc, &thread->todo);
[...]
}
An unaccepted transaction will only have a non-NULL ->to_thread if the
transaction has a specific target thread; for a non-reply transaction,
that is only the case if it is a two-way transaction that was sent
while the binder call stack already contained the target task (iow,
the transaction looks like a synchronous callback invocation).
With the steps:
- P3 calls P2 (via magic handle 0) with (void*)1 as argument (two-way
transaction)
- P2 receives the handle and uses it to call P3 (two-way transaction)
- P3 calls P2 (via magic handle 0) (two-way transaction)
- P2 calls P2 (via handle 1) (two-way transaction)
the call stack will look like this:
P3 -> P2 -> P3 -> P2 -> P2
The initial call from P3 to P2 was IIRC just to give P2 a handle to
P3; IIRC the relevant part of the call stack was:
P2 -> P3 -> P2 -> P2
Because P2 already occurs down in the call stack, the final
transaction "P2 -> P2" is considered to be a callback and is
thread-directed.
The reason why P3 has to be created from task B is the "if
(target_node && target_proc->pid == proc->pid)" check for transactions
to reference 0.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
