Re: [PATCH v2] usb: gadget: fix race when gadget driver register via ioctl

From: Alan Stern
Date: Sun May 08 2022 - 10:36:35 EST


On Sun, May 08, 2022 at 12:08:35PM +0800, Schspa Shi wrote:
> Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >
> > Are you sure that this patch will fix the problem found by syzbot? That
> > is, are you sure that the problem really was caused by two threads
> > registering the same driver concurrently?
> >
>
> Yes, from the console log from syzbot.
> T8324 alloced driver_private was released by T8326.

That is a smoking gun.

> > The fact that the error was "use after free" suggests that the problem
> > might be something else. It looks like one of the threads was trying to
> > access the driver structure after the other thread had done something
> > that caused it to be deallocated, which suggests an error in reference
> > counting.
> >
>
> The direct cause of this place is because of the refcount error, but the
> root cause is still caused by multiple registrations
>
> Please refer to the following scenarios.
>
> T1 T2
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> usb_gadget_register_driver_owner
> driver_register driver_register
> driver_find driver_find
> bus_add_driver bus_add_driver
> priv alloced <context switch>
> drv->p = priv;
> <schedule out>
> kobject_init_and_add // refcount = 1;
> //couldn't find an available UDC or it's busy
> <context switch>
> priv alloced
> drv->priv = priv;
> kobject_init_and_add
> ---> refcount = 1 <------
> // register success
> <context switch>
> ===================== another ioctl/process ======================
> driver_register
> driver_find
> k = kset_find_obj()
> ---> refcount = 2 <------
> <context out>
> driver_unregister
> // drv->p become T2's priv
> ---> refcount = 1 <------
> <context switch>
> kobject_put(k)
> ---> refcount = 0 <------
> return priv->driver;
> --------UAF here----------

It looks like you've got T2 calling driver_register and driver_find
twice, but the overall idea is pretty clear.

> There will be UAF in this scenario.
> And all the logs reported by syzbot can be matched to this scenario.

And in any case it is obvious that the patch is necessary. (Although I
would have put the new state before the RUNNING state, to reflect the
actual order in which the states occur.)

Acked-by: Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Alan Stern