adding /me
On 12/04/17 04:24, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 07:19:53PM +0200, Dan Aloni wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> [[ CC'ed: folks relating to the original __*_refok family of attributes,
>> deferred probing, Open Firmware maintainer, drivers/base/ maintainer,
>> kernel harderning, LKML ]]
>>
>> It seems that it is possible to cause a use-after-free in the base driver
>> platform code using a set of combined circumstances which I describe below.
>> The instance of the issue happens on a patched 4.4 kernel at a client of
>> mine.
>>
>> [ 6.173692] Process kworker/u12:3 (pid: 173, stack limit =
>> 0xfffffc3ea92b8000)
>> [ 6.180902] Call trace:
>> [ 6.183345] [<ffff12bbcd90746c>] __of_match_node+0x48/0x8c
>> [ 6.188820] [<ffff12bbcd9074f4>] of_match_node+0x44/0x68
>> [ 6.194125] [<ffff12bbcd9097e4>] of_match_device+0x34/0x48
>> [ 6.199603] [<ffff12bbcd4e1ed8>] platform_match+0x34/0xa8
>> [ 6.204991] [<ffff12bbcd4df3c0>] __device_attach_driver+0x60/0xc8
>> [ 6.211077] [<ffff12bbcd4dca38>] bus_for_each_drv+0x60/0xac
>> [ 6.216640] [<ffff12bbcd4ded40>] __device_attach+0x98/0x124
>> [ 6.222203] [<ffff12bbcd4df494>] device_initial_probe+0x24/0x30
>> [ 6.228111] [<ffff12bbcd4ddf4c>] bus_probe_device+0x38/0xa0
>> [ 6.233677] [<ffff12bbcd4de57c>] deferred_probe_work_func+0x108/0x128
>> [ 6.240111] [<ffff12bbcced1d50>] process_one_work+0x268/0x444
>> [ 6.245849] [<ffff12bbcced21a0>] worker_thread+0x274/0x404
>> [ 6.251329] [<ffff12bbcced8c28>] kthread+0xe0/0xe8
>> [ 6.256114] [<ffff12bbcce92740>] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x50
>> [ 6.261415] ---[ end trace fccad0f7d2c2142a ]---
>> [ 6.271293] note: kworker/u12:3[173] exited with preempt_count 1
>> [ 6.277342] Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address
>> ffffffffffffffd8
>>
>> It happens while booting, and among other things it requires having platform
>> OF drivers marking their `of_driver_id` arrays as `__initconst`, e.g:
>>
>> static const struct of_device_id some_driver_of[] __initconst = {
>> ...
>> {},
>> };
>>
>> Given a platform driver that uses deferred probing, these arrays marked as
>> `__initconst` could be accessed from a deferred probe path after the init
>> section of the kernel has been freed. I have not seen anything in the API
>> related deferred probing that can guard from this scenario.
>>
>> On kernels prior to KASLR the access is not detected, but it can still
>> happen,
>> potentially accessing memory that was returned to the page allocator.
>>
>> On 4.15-rc1, the following shows the ratio between instances of
>> `of_device_id`
>> arrays and the number of them which are declared`__initconst`:
>>
>> $ git grep 'struct of_device_id.*\[\]' | wc -l
>> 3089
>>
>> $ git grep 'struct of_device_id.*\[\]' | grep __initconst | wc -l
>> 117
>>
>> Not all of these instances are platform drivers, but perhaps deferred
>> probing with other types of drivers may cause similar issues.
>>
>> Perhaps it is worthwhile patching stable kernels for the removal of
>> `__initconst` on these arrays?
>
> Yes, if those patches are in Linus's tree, that fixes a bug.
>
>> And for the larger question -
>>
>> Freeing of init sections poses an exploitable vulnerability if that memory
>> is not unmapped, _and_ if there are still accesses taking place due to bugs
>> of this kind. Linux's build process is supposed to detect references from
>> non-freed sections to the freed sections, but clearly this instance has
>> not been detected during build, particularly because we have the `__ref`,
>> `__refdata`, and `__refconst` attributes which suppress those checks.
>>
>> Perhaps as a harderning measure, older kernels should be patched with a
>> config option for not freeing init sections?
>
> Older kernels should just get the fixes that are in newer kernels :)
>
> If you have specific pointers to commits that resolve these issues, I'll
> be glad to queue them up in the stable kernels.
>
> Yes, it is a whack-a-mole fixup, a much better option would be what you
> suggest. Perhaps we need to fix the build to properly mark these
> section references as errors like other ones are?
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>
