Re: [PATCH 1/1] tee: amdtee: fix use-after-free vulnerability in amdtee_close_session

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Rijo,

On Fri, 22 Sept 2023 at 12:26, Rijo Thomas <Rijo-john.Thomas@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> There is a potential race condition in amdtee_close_session that may
> cause use-after-free in amdtee_open_session. For instance, if a session
> has refcount == 1, and one thread tries to free this session via:
>
>     kref_put(&sess->refcount, destroy_session);
>
> the reference count will get decremented, and the next step would be to
> call destroy_session(). However, if in another thread,
> amdtee_open_session() is called before destroy_session() has completed
> execution, alloc_session() may return 'sess' that will be freed up
> later in destroy_session() leading to use-after-free in
> amdtee_open_session.
>
> To fix this issue, treat decrement of sess->refcount and invocation of
> destroy_session() as a single critical section, so that it is executed
> atomically.
>
> Fixes: 757cc3e9ff1d ("tee: add AMD-TEE driver")
> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Signed-off-by: Rijo Thomas <Rijo-john.Thomas@xxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/tee/amdtee/core.c | 9 +++++++--
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/tee/amdtee/core.c b/drivers/tee/amdtee/core.c
> index 372d64756ed6..04cee03bec9d 100644
> --- a/drivers/tee/amdtee/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/tee/amdtee/core.c
> @@ -217,14 +217,13 @@ static int copy_ta_binary(struct tee_context *ctx, void *ptr, void **ta,
>         return rc;
>  }
>
> +/* mutex must be held by caller */
>  static void destroy_session(struct kref *ref)
>  {
>         struct amdtee_session *sess = container_of(ref, struct amdtee_session,
>                                                    refcount);
>
> -       mutex_lock(&session_list_mutex);
>         list_del(&sess->list_node);
> -       mutex_unlock(&session_list_mutex);
>         kfree(sess);
>  }
>
> @@ -272,7 +271,9 @@ int amdtee_open_session(struct tee_context *ctx,
>         if (arg->ret != TEEC_SUCCESS) {
>                 pr_err("open_session failed %d\n", arg->ret);
>                 handle_unload_ta(ta_handle);
> +               mutex_lock(&session_list_mutex);
>                 kref_put(&sess->refcount, destroy_session);

How about you rather use kref_put_mutex() here and then keep the
mutex_unlock() within the destroy_session()?

> +               mutex_unlock(&session_list_mutex);
>                 goto out;
>         }
>
> @@ -290,7 +291,9 @@ int amdtee_open_session(struct tee_context *ctx,
>                 pr_err("reached maximum session count %d\n", TEE_NUM_SESSIONS);
>                 handle_close_session(ta_handle, session_info);
>                 handle_unload_ta(ta_handle);
> +               mutex_lock(&session_list_mutex);
>                 kref_put(&sess->refcount, destroy_session);

Ditto.

> +               mutex_unlock(&session_list_mutex);
>                 rc = -ENOMEM;
>                 goto out;
>         }
> @@ -331,7 +334,9 @@ int amdtee_close_session(struct tee_context *ctx, u32 session)
>         handle_close_session(ta_handle, session_info);
>         handle_unload_ta(ta_handle);
>
> +       mutex_lock(&session_list_mutex);
>         kref_put(&sess->refcount, destroy_session);

Ditto.

-Sumit

> +       mutex_unlock(&session_list_mutex);
>
>         return 0;
>  }
> --
> 2.25.1
>



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Development Newbies]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux