Re: [PATCH] drm/nouveau/mmu: fix Use after Free bug in nvkm_vmm_node_split
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 03:17:15 +0100, Danilo Krummrich wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 01:10:46PM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 15:07:55 +0100, > > Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 08:27:58 +0100, > > > Zheng Wang wrote: > > > > > > > > Here is a function call chain. > > > > nvkm_vmm_pfn_map->nvkm_vmm_pfn_split_merge->nvkm_vmm_node_split > > > > If nvkm_vma_tail return NULL in nvkm_vmm_node_split, it will > > > > finally invoke nvkm_vmm_node_merge->nvkm_vmm_node_delete, which > > > > will free the vma. However, nvkm_vmm_pfn_map didn't notice that. > > > > It goes into next label and UAF happens. > > > > > > > > Fix it by returning the return-value of nvkm_vmm_node_merge > > > > instead of NULL. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Zheng Wang > > > > > > FWIW, CVE-2023-0030 has been assigned to this bug. > > > It's a question whether it really deserves as a security issue, but a > > > bug is a bug... > > > > > > Ben, could you review this please? > > > > A gentle ping as reminder. The bug is still present. > > This was also reported in [1]. I had a closer look and FWICT this code is fine > and there isn't a bug. > > Zheng Wang, the reporter of the BZ, also confirmed this to be a false positive > from CodeQL. > > Anyway, here's the explaination I also posted in the BZ: > > "In nvkm_vmm_node_merge() nvkm_vmm_node_delete() is only called when prev is > set. However, prev is NULL unless we enter the "if (vma->addr != addr)" path > in > nvkm_vmm_node_split(). In such a case the vma pointer, which is also passed to > nvkm_vmm_node_merge(), is set to a freshly allocated struct nvkm_vma with > nvkm_vma_tail() right before prev is set to the old vma pointer. > > Hence, the only thing happening there when nvkm_vma_tail() fails in the > "if (vma->size != size)" path is that either nvkm_vmm_node_merge() does > nothing > in case prev wasn't set or it merges and frees the new vma created in the > "if (vma->addr != addr)" path. Or in other words the proper cleanup for the > error condition is done. > > I can't see any case where the original vma pointer given by > nvkm_vmm_pfn_map() > is actually freed." > > [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2157041 Thanks for the information! Then we should try to dispute the CVE. I'll ask our security team. Takashi > > - Danilo > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > Takashi > > > > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > Takashi > > > > > > > --- > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/mmu/vmm.c | 4 ++-- > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/mmu/vmm.c > > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/mmu/vmm.c > > > > index ae793f400ba1..84d6fc87b2e8 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/mmu/vmm.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/mmu/vmm.c > > > > @@ -937,8 +937,8 @@ nvkm_vmm_node_split(struct nvkm_vmm *vmm, > > > > if (vma->size != size) { > > > > struct nvkm_vma *tmp; > > > > if (!(tmp = nvkm_vma_tail(vma, vma->size - size))) { > > > > - nvkm_vmm_node_merge(vmm, prev, vma, NULL, > > > > vma->size); > > > > - return NULL; > > > > + tmp = nvkm_vmm_node_merge(vmm, prev, vma, NULL, > > > > vma->size); > > > > + return tmp; > > > > } > > > > tmp->part = true; > > > > nvkm_vmm_node_insert(vmm, tmp); > > > > -- > > > > 2.25.1 > > > > > > >
Re: [PATCH] drm/nouveau/mmu: fix Use after Free bug in nvkm_vmm_node_split
On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 01:10:46PM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote: > On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 15:07:55 +0100, > Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > > On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 08:27:58 +0100, > > Zheng Wang wrote: > > > > > > Here is a function call chain. > > > nvkm_vmm_pfn_map->nvkm_vmm_pfn_split_merge->nvkm_vmm_node_split > > > If nvkm_vma_tail return NULL in nvkm_vmm_node_split, it will > > > finally invoke nvkm_vmm_node_merge->nvkm_vmm_node_delete, which > > > will free the vma. However, nvkm_vmm_pfn_map didn't notice that. > > > It goes into next label and UAF happens. > > > > > > Fix it by returning the return-value of nvkm_vmm_node_merge > > > instead of NULL. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Zheng Wang > > > > FWIW, CVE-2023-0030 has been assigned to this bug. > > It's a question whether it really deserves as a security issue, but a > > bug is a bug... > > > > Ben, could you review this please? > > A gentle ping as reminder. The bug is still present. This was also reported in [1]. I had a closer look and FWICT this code is fine and there isn't a bug. Zheng Wang, the reporter of the BZ, also confirmed this to be a false positive from CodeQL. Anyway, here's the explaination I also posted in the BZ: "In nvkm_vmm_node_merge() nvkm_vmm_node_delete() is only called when prev is set. However, prev is NULL unless we enter the "if (vma->addr != addr)" path in nvkm_vmm_node_split(). In such a case the vma pointer, which is also passed to nvkm_vmm_node_merge(), is set to a freshly allocated struct nvkm_vma with nvkm_vma_tail() right before prev is set to the old vma pointer. Hence, the only thing happening there when nvkm_vma_tail() fails in the "if (vma->size != size)" path is that either nvkm_vmm_node_merge() does nothing in case prev wasn't set or it merges and frees the new vma created in the "if (vma->addr != addr)" path. Or in other words the proper cleanup for the error condition is done. I can't see any case where the original vma pointer given by nvkm_vmm_pfn_map() is actually freed." [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2157041 - Danilo > > > thanks, > > Takashi > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > Takashi > > > > > --- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/mmu/vmm.c | 4 ++-- > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/mmu/vmm.c > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/mmu/vmm.c > > > index ae793f400ba1..84d6fc87b2e8 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/mmu/vmm.c > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/mmu/vmm.c > > > @@ -937,8 +937,8 @@ nvkm_vmm_node_split(struct nvkm_vmm *vmm, > > > if (vma->size != size) { > > > struct nvkm_vma *tmp; > > > if (!(tmp = nvkm_vma_tail(vma, vma->size - size))) { > > > - nvkm_vmm_node_merge(vmm, prev, vma, NULL, vma->size); > > > - return NULL; > > > + tmp = nvkm_vmm_node_merge(vmm, prev, vma, NULL, > > > vma->size); > > > + return tmp; > > > } > > > tmp->part = true; > > > nvkm_vmm_node_insert(vmm, tmp); > > > -- > > > 2.25.1 > > > >
Re: [PATCH] drm/nouveau/mmu: fix Use after Free bug in nvkm_vmm_node_split
On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 15:07:55 +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 08:27:58 +0100, > Zheng Wang wrote: > > > > Here is a function call chain. > > nvkm_vmm_pfn_map->nvkm_vmm_pfn_split_merge->nvkm_vmm_node_split > > If nvkm_vma_tail return NULL in nvkm_vmm_node_split, it will > > finally invoke nvkm_vmm_node_merge->nvkm_vmm_node_delete, which > > will free the vma. However, nvkm_vmm_pfn_map didn't notice that. > > It goes into next label and UAF happens. > > > > Fix it by returning the return-value of nvkm_vmm_node_merge > > instead of NULL. > > > > Signed-off-by: Zheng Wang > > FWIW, CVE-2023-0030 has been assigned to this bug. > It's a question whether it really deserves as a security issue, but a > bug is a bug... > > Ben, could you review this please? A gentle ping as reminder. The bug is still present. thanks, Takashi > > > thanks, > > Takashi > > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/mmu/vmm.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/mmu/vmm.c > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/mmu/vmm.c > > index ae793f400ba1..84d6fc87b2e8 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/mmu/vmm.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/mmu/vmm.c > > @@ -937,8 +937,8 @@ nvkm_vmm_node_split(struct nvkm_vmm *vmm, > > if (vma->size != size) { > > struct nvkm_vma *tmp; > > if (!(tmp = nvkm_vma_tail(vma, vma->size - size))) { > > - nvkm_vmm_node_merge(vmm, prev, vma, NULL, vma->size); > > - return NULL; > > + tmp = nvkm_vmm_node_merge(vmm, prev, vma, NULL, > > vma->size); > > + return tmp; > > } > > tmp->part = true; > > nvkm_vmm_node_insert(vmm, tmp); > > -- > > 2.25.1 > >
Re: [PATCH] drm/nouveau/mmu: fix Use after Free bug in nvkm_vmm_node_split
On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 08:27:58 +0100, Zheng Wang wrote: > > Here is a function call chain. > nvkm_vmm_pfn_map->nvkm_vmm_pfn_split_merge->nvkm_vmm_node_split > If nvkm_vma_tail return NULL in nvkm_vmm_node_split, it will > finally invoke nvkm_vmm_node_merge->nvkm_vmm_node_delete, which > will free the vma. However, nvkm_vmm_pfn_map didn't notice that. > It goes into next label and UAF happens. > > Fix it by returning the return-value of nvkm_vmm_node_merge > instead of NULL. > > Signed-off-by: Zheng Wang FWIW, CVE-2023-0030 has been assigned to this bug. It's a question whether it really deserves as a security issue, but a bug is a bug... Ben, could you review this please? thanks, Takashi > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/mmu/vmm.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/mmu/vmm.c > b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/mmu/vmm.c > index ae793f400ba1..84d6fc87b2e8 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/mmu/vmm.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/mmu/vmm.c > @@ -937,8 +937,8 @@ nvkm_vmm_node_split(struct nvkm_vmm *vmm, > if (vma->size != size) { > struct nvkm_vma *tmp; > if (!(tmp = nvkm_vma_tail(vma, vma->size - size))) { > - nvkm_vmm_node_merge(vmm, prev, vma, NULL, vma->size); > - return NULL; > + tmp = nvkm_vmm_node_merge(vmm, prev, vma, NULL, > vma->size); > + return tmp; > } > tmp->part = true; > nvkm_vmm_node_insert(vmm, tmp); > -- > 2.25.1 >
[PATCH] drm/nouveau/mmu: fix Use after Free bug in nvkm_vmm_node_split
Here is a function call chain. nvkm_vmm_pfn_map->nvkm_vmm_pfn_split_merge->nvkm_vmm_node_split If nvkm_vma_tail return NULL in nvkm_vmm_node_split, it will finally invoke nvkm_vmm_node_merge->nvkm_vmm_node_delete, which will free the vma. However, nvkm_vmm_pfn_map didn't notice that. It goes into next label and UAF happens. Fix it by returning the return-value of nvkm_vmm_node_merge instead of NULL. Signed-off-by: Zheng Wang --- drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/mmu/vmm.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/mmu/vmm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/mmu/vmm.c index ae793f400ba1..84d6fc87b2e8 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/mmu/vmm.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/mmu/vmm.c @@ -937,8 +937,8 @@ nvkm_vmm_node_split(struct nvkm_vmm *vmm, if (vma->size != size) { struct nvkm_vma *tmp; if (!(tmp = nvkm_vma_tail(vma, vma->size - size))) { - nvkm_vmm_node_merge(vmm, prev, vma, NULL, vma->size); - return NULL; + tmp = nvkm_vmm_node_merge(vmm, prev, vma, NULL, vma->size); + return tmp; } tmp->part = true; nvkm_vmm_node_insert(vmm, tmp); -- 2.25.1