aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/fs/locks.c
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authoryangerkun <yangerkun@huawei.com>2020-03-04 15:25:56 +0800
committerJeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>2020-03-06 11:54:13 -0500
commit6d390e4b5d48ec03bb87e63cf0a2bff5f4e116da (patch)
treeffacf4a699335f1caa8b2a2b6e322ad5542b1572 /fs/locks.c
parentfcntl: Distribute switch variables for initialization (diff)
downloadlinux-dev-6d390e4b5d48ec03bb87e63cf0a2bff5f4e116da.tar.xz
linux-dev-6d390e4b5d48ec03bb87e63cf0a2bff5f4e116da.zip
locks: fix a potential use-after-free problem when wakeup a waiter
'16306a61d3b7 ("fs/locks: always delete_block after waiting.")' add the logic to check waiter->fl_blocker without blocked_lock_lock. And it will trigger a UAF when we try to wakeup some waiter´╝Ü Thread 1 has create a write flock a on file, and now thread 2 try to unlock and delete flock a, thread 3 try to add flock b on the same file. Thread2 Thread3 flock syscall(create flock b) ...flock_lock_inode_wait flock_lock_inode(will insert our fl_blocked_member list to flock a's fl_blocked_requests) sleep flock syscall(unlock) ...flock_lock_inode_wait locks_delete_lock_ctx ...__locks_wake_up_blocks __locks_delete_blocks( b->fl_blocker = NULL) ... break by a signal locks_delete_block b->fl_blocker == NULL && list_empty(&b->fl_blocked_requests) success, return directly locks_free_lock b wake_up(&b->fl_waiter) trigger UAF Fix it by remove this logic, and this patch may also fix CVE-2019-19769. Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Fixes: 16306a61d3b7 ("fs/locks: always delete_block after waiting.") Signed-off-by: yangerkun <yangerkun@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
Diffstat (limited to '')
-rw-r--r--fs/locks.c14
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 14 deletions
diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
index 44b6da032842..426b55d333d5 100644
--- a/fs/locks.c
+++ b/fs/locks.c
@@ -753,20 +753,6 @@ int locks_delete_block(struct file_lock *waiter)
{
int status = -ENOENT;
- /*
- * If fl_blocker is NULL, it won't be set again as this thread
- * "owns" the lock and is the only one that might try to claim
- * the lock. So it is safe to test fl_blocker locklessly.
- * Also if fl_blocker is NULL, this waiter is not listed on
- * fl_blocked_requests for some lock, so no other request can
- * be added to the list of fl_blocked_requests for this
- * request. So if fl_blocker is NULL, it is safe to
- * locklessly check if fl_blocked_requests is empty. If both
- * of these checks succeed, there is no need to take the lock.
- */
- if (waiter->fl_blocker == NULL &&
- list_empty(&waiter->fl_blocked_requests))
- return status;
spin_lock(&blocked_lock_lock);
if (waiter->fl_blocker)
status = 0;