Dear,
On Thu, Nov 07, 2024 at 01:52:33PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Nov 2024 16:41:02 -0500 Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 07, 2024 at 11:29:42AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > On Wed, 6 Nov 2024 04:36:04 -0500 Hyunwoo Kim wrote:
> > > > When hvs is released, there is a possibility that vsk->trans may not
> > > > be initialized to NULL, which could lead to a dangling pointer.
> > > > This issue is resolved by initializing vsk->trans to NULL.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: ae0078fcf0a5 ("hv_sock: implements Hyper-V transport for Virtual
> > > > Sockets (AF_VSOCK)")
> > > > Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
> > >
> > > I don't see the v1 on netdev@, nor a link to it in the change log
> > > so I may be missing the context, but the commit message is a bit
> > > sparse.
> > >
> > > The stable and Fixes tags indicate this is a fix. But the commit
> > > message reads like currently no such crash is observed, quote:
> > >
> > > which could lead to a dangling pointer.
> > > ^^^^^
> > > ?
> > >
> > > Could someone clarify?
> >
> > I think it's just an accent, in certain languages/cultures expressing
> > uncertainty is considered polite. Should be "can".
>
> You're probably right, the issue perhaps isn't the phrasing as much
> as the lack of pointing out the code path in which the dangling pointer
> would be deferenced. Hyunwoo Kim, can you provide one?
This is a potential issue.
Initially, I reported a patch for a dangling pointer in
virtio_transport_destruct() within virtio_transport_common.c to the security
team.
The vulnerability in virtio_transport_destruct() was actually exploited for
root privilege escalation, and its exploitability was confirmed (Google
kernelCTF).
Afterward, the maintainers recommended patching the hvs_destruct() function,
which
has a similar form to virtio_transport_destruct(), so I created and submitted
this patch.
Unlike virtio_transport_destruct(), this has not been actually triggered, so
there
is no call stack available.
However, I still believe it’s good to patch it since it is a potential issue.
Additionally, the v1 patch only exists in the security mailing list, which is
why it might not be visible.
Best Regards,
Hyunwoo Kim
