Re: KASAN: use-after-free Read in __lock_sock (high-risk primitives found)

From: SyzScope
Date: Wed May 05 2021 - 17:22:04 EST


Hi,

This is SyzScope, a research project that aims to reveal high-risk primitives from a seemingly low-risk bug (UAF/OOB read, WARNING, BUG, etc.).

We are currently testing seemingly low-risk bugs on syzbot's open section(https://syzkaller.appspot.com/upstream), and try to reach out to kernel developers if SyzScope discovers any high-risk primitives.

Regrading the bug "KASAN: use-after-free Read in __lock_sock", it seems that this bug is still missing a valid patch.

SyzScope reports 8 memory write primitives, and 1 control flow hijacking primitives from this bug.

The detailed comments can be found at https://sites.google.com/view/syzscope/kasan-use-after-free-read-in-lock_sock

Please let us know if SyzScope indeed helps, and any suggestions/feedback.

On 11/22/2018 6:37 AM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 10:44:16PM +0900, Xin Long wrote:
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 10:13 PM Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
<marcelo.leitner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 05:57:33PM +0900, Xin Long wrote:
On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 4:18 PM syzbot
<syzbot+9276d76e83e3bcde6c99@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello,

syzbot found the following crash on:

HEAD commit: ccda4af0f4b9 Linux 4.20-rc2
git tree: upstream
console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=156cd533400000
kernel config: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=4a0a89f12ca9b0f5
dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=9276d76e83e3bcde6c99
compiler: gcc (GCC) 8.0.1 20180413 (experimental)

Unfortunately, I don't have any reproducer for this crash yet.

IMPORTANT: if you fix the bug, please add the following tag to the commit:
Reported-by: syzbot+9276d76e83e3bcde6c99@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

netlink: 5 bytes leftover after parsing attributes in process
`syz-executor5'.
==================================================================
BUG: KASAN: use-after-free in __lock_acquire+0x36d9/0x4c20
kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3218
Read of size 8 at addr ffff8881d26d60e0 by task syz-executor1/13725

CPU: 0 PID: 13725 Comm: syz-executor1 Not tainted 4.20.0-rc2+ #333
Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS
Google 01/01/2011
Call Trace:
__dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:77 [inline]
dump_stack+0x244/0x39d lib/dump_stack.c:113
print_address_description.cold.7+0x9/0x1ff mm/kasan/report.c:256
kasan_report_error mm/kasan/report.c:354 [inline]
kasan_report.cold.8+0x242/0x309 mm/kasan/report.c:412
__asan_report_load8_noabort+0x14/0x20 mm/kasan/report.c:433
__lock_acquire+0x36d9/0x4c20 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3218
lock_acquire+0x1ed/0x520 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3844
__raw_spin_lock_bh include/linux/spinlock_api_smp.h:135 [inline]
_raw_spin_lock_bh+0x31/0x40 kernel/locking/spinlock.c:168
spin_lock_bh include/linux/spinlock.h:334 [inline]
__lock_sock+0x203/0x350 net/core/sock.c:2253
lock_sock_nested+0xfe/0x120 net/core/sock.c:2774
lock_sock include/net/sock.h:1492 [inline]
sctp_sock_dump+0x122/0xb20 net/sctp/diag.c:324
static int sctp_sock_dump(struct sctp_transport *tsp, void *p)
{
struct sctp_endpoint *ep = tsp->asoc->ep;
struct sctp_comm_param *commp = p;
struct sock *sk = ep->base.sk; <--- [1]
...
int err = 0;

lock_sock(sk); <--- [2]

Between [1] and [2], an asoc peeloff may happen, still thinking
how to avoid this.
This race cannot happen more than once for an asoc, so something
like this may be doable:

struct sctp_comm_param *commp = p;
struct sctp_endpoint *ep;
struct sock *sk;
...
int err = 0;

again:
ep = tsp->asoc->ep;
sk = ep->base.sk; <---[3]
lock_sock(sk); <--- [2]
if peel-off happens between [3] and [2], and sk is freed
somewhere, it will panic on [2] when trying to get the
sk->lock, no?
Not sure what protects it, but this construct is also used in BH processing at
sctp_rcv():
...
bh_lock_sock(sk); [4]

if (sk != rcvr->sk) {
/* Our cached sk is different from the rcvr->sk. This is
* because migrate()/accept() may have moved the association
* to a new socket and released all the sockets. So now we
* are holding a lock on the old socket while the user may
* be doing something with the new socket. Switch our veiw
* of the current sk.
*/
bh_unlock_sock(sk);
sk = rcvr->sk;
bh_lock_sock(sk);
}
...

If it is not safe, then we have an issue there too.
And by [4] that copy on sk is pretty old already.

if (sk != tsp->asoc->ep->base.sk) {
/* Asoc was peeloff'd */
unlock_sock(sk);
goto again;
}

Similarly to what we did on cea0cc80a677 ("sctp: use the right sk
after waking up from wait_buf sleep").