From: Lin Ma
stable inclusion
form stable-v5.10.82
commit 73a0d12114b4bc1a9def79a623264754b9df698e
issue: #I4RVJ4
CVE: CVE-2021-4202
Reference: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?id=...
Signed-off-by: Yu Changchun
--------------------------------
[ Upstream commit 3e3b5dfcd16a3e254aab61bd1e8c417dd4503102 ]
There is a potential UAF between the unregistration routine and the NFC
netlink operations.
The race that cause that UAF can be shown as below:
(FREE) | (USE)
nfcmrvl_nci_unregister_dev | nfc_genl_dev_up
nci_close_device |
nci_unregister_device | nfc_get_device
nfc_unregister_device | nfc_dev_up
rfkill_destory |
device_del | rfkill_blocked
... | ...
The root cause for this race is concluded below:
1. The rfkill_blocked (USE) in nfc_dev_up is supposed to be placed after
the device_is_registered check.
2. Since the netlink operations are possible just after the device_add
in nfc_register_device, the nfc_dev_up() can happen anywhere during the
rfkill creation process, which leads to data race.
This patch reorder these actions to permit
1. Once device_del is finished, the nfc_dev_up cannot dereference the
rfkill object.
2. The rfkill_register need to be placed after the device_add of nfc_dev
because the parent device need to be created first. So this patch keeps
the order but inject device_lock to prevent the data race.
Signed-off-by: Lin Ma
Fixes: be055b2f89b5 ("NFC: RFKILL support")
Reviewed-by: Jakub Kicinski
Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211116152652.19217-1-linma@zju.edu.cn
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin
Signed-off-by: Chen Jun
Signed-off-by: Zheng Zengkai
Signed-off-by: Yu Changchun
---
net/nfc/core.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/nfc/core.c b/net/nfc/core.c
index eb377f87bcae..6800470dd6df 100644
--- a/net/nfc/core.c
+++ b/net/nfc/core.c
@@ -94,13 +94,13 @@ int nfc_dev_up(struct nfc_dev *dev)
device_lock(&dev->dev);
- if (dev->rfkill && rfkill_blocked(dev->rfkill)) {
- rc = -ERFKILL;
+ if (!device_is_registered(&dev->dev)) {
+ rc = -ENODEV;
goto error;
}
- if (!device_is_registered(&dev->dev)) {
- rc = -ENODEV;
+ if (dev->rfkill && rfkill_blocked(dev->rfkill)) {
+ rc = -ERFKILL;
goto error;
}
@@ -1117,11 +1117,7 @@ int nfc_register_device(struct nfc_dev *dev)
if (rc)
pr_err("Could not register llcp device\n");
- rc = nfc_genl_device_added(dev);
- if (rc)
- pr_debug("The userspace won't be notified that the device %s was added\n",
- dev_name(&dev->dev));
-
+ device_lock(&dev->dev);
dev->rfkill = rfkill_alloc(dev_name(&dev->dev), &dev->dev,
RFKILL_TYPE_NFC, &nfc_rfkill_ops, dev);
if (dev->rfkill) {
@@ -1130,6 +1126,12 @@ int nfc_register_device(struct nfc_dev *dev)
dev->rfkill = NULL;
}
}
+ device_unlock(&dev->dev);
+
+ rc = nfc_genl_device_added(dev);
+ if (rc)
+ pr_debug("The userspace won't be notified that the device %s was added\n",
+ dev_name(&dev->dev));
return 0;
}
@@ -1146,10 +1148,17 @@ void nfc_unregister_device(struct nfc_dev *dev)
pr_debug("dev_name=%s\n", dev_name(&dev->dev));
+ rc = nfc_genl_device_removed(dev);
+ if (rc)
+ pr_debug("The userspace won't be notified that the device %s "
+ "was removed\n", dev_name(&dev->dev));
+
+ device_lock(&dev->dev);
if (dev->rfkill) {
rfkill_unregister(dev->rfkill);
rfkill_destroy(dev->rfkill);
}
+ device_unlock(&dev->dev);
if (dev->ops->check_presence) {
device_lock(&dev->dev);
@@ -1159,11 +1168,6 @@ void nfc_unregister_device(struct nfc_dev *dev)
cancel_work_sync(&dev->check_pres_work);
}
- rc = nfc_genl_device_removed(dev);
- if (rc)
- pr_debug("The userspace won't be notified that the device %s "
- "was removed\n", dev_name(&dev->dev));
-
nfc_llcp_unregister_device(dev);
mutex_lock(&nfc_devlist_mutex);
--
2.25.1
