On 2024/5/20 17:10, Jingbo Xu wrote:
On 5/20/24 4:38 PM, Baokun Li wrote:
Hi Jingbo,
Thanks for your review!
On 2024/5/20 15:24, Jingbo Xu wrote:
On 5/15/24 4:45 PM, libaokun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: Baokun Li <libaokun1@xxxxxxxxxx>
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.
Sorry the above description makes me confused. As the same request may
be got by different daemon threads multiple times, the introduced
refcount mechanism can't protect it from being completed multiple times
(which is expected). The refcount only protects it from being freed
multiple times.
The idea here is that because the wait only holds one reference count,
complete(&req->done) can only be called when the req has been
successfully removed from the xarry, otherwise the following UAF may
occur:
"complete(&req->done) can only be called when the req has been
successfully removed from the xarry ..."
How this is done? since the following xarray_erase() following the first
xarray_erase() will fail as the xarray slot referred by the same id has
already been erased?
Sorry just forgot to reply to this！
Yes, after loading the xas, the entry (aka req) is checked to see if it
meets
expectations, and only when it does do we null the xas and complete the
request.
--
With Best Regards,
Baokun Li
