Re: [PATCH 1/1] NFSD: fix use-after-free in __nfs42_ssc_open()

[dai.ngo@xxxxxxxxxx]

On 12/12/22 5:40 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Mon, 2022-12-12 at 05:34 -0800, dai.ngo@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > On 12/12/22 4:22 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2022-12-11 at 11:22 -0800, Dai Ngo wrote:
> > > > Problem caused by source's vfsmount being unmounted but remains
> > > > on the delayed unmount list. This happens when nfs42_ssc_open()
> > > > return errors.
> > > > Fixed by removing nfsd4_interssc_connect(), leave the vfsmount
> > > > for the laundromat to unmount when idle time expires.
> > > >
> > > > Reported-by: Xingyuan Mo <hdthky0@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Dai Ngo <dai.ngo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >    fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c | 23 +++++++----------------
> > > >    1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c
> > > > index 8beb2bc4c328..756e42cf0d01 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c
> > > > +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c
> > > > @@ -1463,13 +1463,6 @@ nfsd4_interssc_connect(struct nl4_server *nss, struct svc_rqst *rqstp,
> > > >    	return status;
> > > >    }
> > > >    
> > > > -static void
> > > > -nfsd4_interssc_disconnect(struct vfsmount *ss_mnt)
> > > > -{
> > > > -	nfs_do_sb_deactive(ss_mnt->mnt_sb);
> > > > -	mntput(ss_mnt);
> > > > -}
> > > > -
> > > >    /*
> > > >     * Verify COPY destination stateid.
> > > >     *
> > > > @@ -1572,11 +1565,6 @@ nfsd4_cleanup_inter_ssc(struct vfsmount *ss_mnt, struct file *filp,
> > > >    {
> > > >    }
> > > >    
> > > > -static void
> > > > -nfsd4_interssc_disconnect(struct vfsmount *ss_mnt)
> > > > -{
> > > > -}
> > > > -
> > > >    static struct file *nfs42_ssc_open(struct vfsmount *ss_mnt,
> > > >    				   struct nfs_fh *src_fh,
> > > >    				   nfs4_stateid *stateid)
> > > > @@ -1762,7 +1750,8 @@ static int nfsd4_do_async_copy(void *data)
> > > >    		struct file *filp;
> > > >    
> > > >    		filp = nfs42_ssc_open(copy->ss_mnt, &copy->c_fh,
> > > > -				      &copy->stateid);
> > > > +					&copy->stateid);
> > > > +
> > > >    		if (IS_ERR(filp)) {
> > > >    			switch (PTR_ERR(filp)) {
> > > >    			case -EBADF:
> > > > @@ -1771,7 +1760,7 @@ static int nfsd4_do_async_copy(void *data)
> > > >    			default:
> > > >    				nfserr = nfserr_offload_denied;
> > > >    			}
> > > > -			nfsd4_interssc_disconnect(copy->ss_mnt);
> > > > +			/* ss_mnt will be unmounted by the laundromat */
> > > >    			goto do_callback;
> > > >    		}
> > > >    		nfserr = nfsd4_do_copy(copy, filp, copy->nf_dst->nf_file,
> > > > @@ -1852,8 +1841,10 @@ nfsd4_copy(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nfsd4_compound_state *cstate,
> > > >    	if (async_copy)
> > > >    		cleanup_async_copy(async_copy);
> > > >    	status = nfserrno(-ENOMEM);
> > > > -	if (nfsd4_ssc_is_inter(copy))
> > > > -		nfsd4_interssc_disconnect(copy->ss_mnt);
> > > > +	/*
> > > > +	 * source's vfsmount of inter-copy will be unmounted
> > > > +	 * by the laundromat
> > > > +	 */
> > > >    	goto out;
> > > >    }
> > > >    
> > > This looks reasonable at first glance, but I have some concerns with the
> > > refcounting around ss_mnt elsewhere in this code. nfsd4_ssc_setup_dul
> > > looks for an existing connection and bumps the ni->nsui_refcnt if it
> > > finds one.
> > >
> > > But then later, nfsd4_cleanup_inter_ssc has a couple of cases where it
> > > just does a bare mntput:
> > >
> > >           if (!nn) {
> > >                   mntput(ss_mnt);
> > >                   return;
> > >           }
> > > ...
> > >           if (!found) {
> > >                   mntput(ss_mnt);
> > >                   return;
> > >           }
> > >
> > > The first one looks bogus. Can net_generic return NULL? If so how, and
> > > why is it not a problem elsewhere in the kernel?
> > it looks like net_generic can not fail, no where else check for NULL
> > so I will remove this check.
> >
> > > For the second case, if the ni is no longer on the list, where did the
> > > extra ss_mnt reference come from? Maybe that should be a WARN_ON or
> > > BUG_ON?
> > if ni is not found on the list then it's a bug somewhere so I will add
> > a BUG_ON on this.
> Probably better to just WARN_ON and let any references leak in that
> case. A BUG_ON implies a panic in some environments, and it's best to
> avoid that unless there really is no choice.

ok, thanks Jeff!

-Dai