In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net/smc: fix kernel panic caused by race of smc_sock
A crash occurs when smc_cdc_tx_handler() tries to access smc_sock but smc_release() has already freed it.
[ 4570.695099] BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: 000000002eae9e88 [ 4570.696048] #PF: supervisor write access in kernel mode [ 4570.696728] #PF: error_code(0x0002) - not-present page [ 4570.697401] PGD 0 P4D 0 [ 4570.697716] Oops: 0002 [#1] PREEMPT SMP NOPTI [ 4570.698228] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 5.16.0-rc4+ #111 [ 4570.699013] Hardware name: Alibaba Cloud Alibaba Cloud ECS, BIOS 8c24b4c 04/0 [ 4570.699933] RIP: 0010:_raw_spin_lock+0x1a/0x30 <…> [ 4570.711446] Call Trace: [ 4570.711746] [ 4570.711992] smc_cdc_tx_handler+0x41/0xc0 [ 4570.712470] smc_wr_tx_tasklet_fn+0x213/0x560 [ 4570.712981] ? smc_cdc_tx_dismisser+0x10/0x10 [ 4570.713489] tasklet_action_common.isra.17+0x66/0x140 [ 4570.714083] __do_softirq+0x123/0x2f4 [ 4570.714521] irq_exit_rcu+0xc4/0xf0 [ 4570.714934] common_interrupt+0xba/0xe0
Though smc_cdc_tx_handler() checked the existence of smc connection, smc_release() may have already dismissed and released the smc socket before smc_cdc_tx_handler() further visits it.
smc_cdc_tx_handler() |smc_release() if (!conn) | | |smc_cdc_tx_dismiss_slots() | smc_cdc_tx_dismisser() | |sock_put(&smc->sk) <- last sock_put, | smc_sock freed bh_lock_sock(&smc->sk) (panic) |
To make sure we wont receive any CDC messages after we free the smc_sock, add a refcount on the smc_connection for inflight CDC message(posted to the QP but havent received related CQE), and dont release the smc_connection until all the inflight CDC messages haven been done, for both success or failed ones.
Using refcount on CDC messages brings another problem: when the link is going to be destroyed, smcr_link_clear() will reset the QP, which then remove all the pending CQEs related to the QP in the CQ. To make sure all the CQEs will always come back so the refcount on the smc_connection can always reach 0, smc_ib_modify_qp_reset() was replaced by smc_ib_modify_qp_error(). And remove the timeout in smc_wr_tx_wait_no_pending_sends() since we need to wait for all pending WQEs done, or we may encounter use-after- free when handling CQEs.
For IB device removal routine, we need to wait for all the QPs on that device been destroyed before we can destroy CQs on the device, or the refcount on smc_connection wont reach 0 and smc_sock cannot be released.
The product contains a code sequence that can run concurrently with other code, and the code sequence requires temporary, exclusive access to a shared resource, but a timing window exists in which the shared resource can be modified by another code sequence that is operating concurrently.
| Name | Vendor | Start Version | End Version |
|---|---|---|---|
| Linux_kernel | Linux | 4.11.0 (including) | 5.10.90 (excluding) |
| Linux_kernel | Linux | 5.11.0 (including) | 5.15.13 (excluding) |
This can have security implications when the expected synchronization is in security-critical code, such as recording whether a user is authenticated or modifying important state information that should not be influenced by an outsider. A race condition occurs within concurrent environments, and is effectively a property of a code sequence. Depending on the context, a code sequence may be in the form of a function call, a small number of instructions, a series of program invocations, etc. A race condition violates these properties, which are closely related:
A race condition exists when an “interfering code sequence” can still access the shared resource, violating exclusivity. Programmers may assume that certain code sequences execute too quickly to be affected by an interfering code sequence; when they are not, this violates atomicity. For example, the single “x++” statement may appear atomic at the code layer, but it is actually non-atomic at the instruction layer, since it involves a read (the original value of x), followed by a computation (x+1), followed by a write (save the result to x). The interfering code sequence could be “trusted” or “untrusted.” A trusted interfering code sequence occurs within the product; it cannot be modified by the attacker, and it can only be invoked indirectly. An untrusted interfering code sequence can be authored directly by the attacker, and typically it is external to the vulnerable product.