CVE-2016-9794 (published 2016-12-28T07:59Z)

Race condition in the snd_pcm_period_elapsed function in sound/core/pcm_lib.c in the ALSA subsystem in the Linux kernel before 4.7 allows local users to cause a denial of service (use-after-free) or possibly have unspecified other impact via a crafted SNDRV_PCM_TRIGGER_START command.

Severity: HIGH
CVSS v2 base score: 7.2 (AV:L/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C)
CVSS v3 base score: 7.8, HIGH (CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H)

Weakness information:
cwe_id: CWE-362
cwe_name: Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization ('Race Condition')
description: 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.
extended_description: 
            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:
               
                  Exclusivity - the code sequence is given exclusive access to the shared resource, i.e., no other code sequence can modify properties of the shared resource before the original sequence has completed execution.
                  Atomicity - the code sequence is behaviorally atomic, i.e., no other thread or process can concurrently execute the same sequence of instructions (or a subset) against the same resource.
               
            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.
         
         
cwe_id: CWE-416
cwe_name: Use After Free
description: The product reuses or references memory after it has been freed. At some point afterward, the memory may be allocated again and saved in another pointer, while the original pointer references a location somewhere within the new allocation. Any operations using the original pointer are no longer valid because the memory "belongs" to the code that operates on the new pointer.
extended_description: 
             
             
             
			 
             
             
         
         

Fix information:
repo_url: https://github.com/torvalds/linux
commit_details: repo_url: https://github.com/torvalds/linux
author: Takashi Iwai
author_date: 2016-04-14 18:02:37+02:00
msg: ALSA: pcm : Call kill_fasync() in stream lock

Currently kill_fasync() is called outside the stream lock in
snd_pcm_period_elapsed().  This is potentially racy, since the stream
may get released even during the irq handler is running.  Although
snd_pcm_release_substream() calls snd_pcm_drop(), this doesn't
guarantee that the irq handler finishes, thus the kill_fasync() call
outside the stream spin lock may be invoked after the substream is
detached, as recently reported by KASAN.

As a quick workaround, move kill_fasync() call inside the stream
lock.  The fasync is rarely used interface, so this shouldn't have a
big impact from the performance POV.

Ideally, we should implement some sync mechanism for the proper finish
of stream and irq handler.  But this oneliner should suffice for most
cases, so far.

Reported-by: Baozeng Ding <sploving1@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
repository: repo_url: https://github.com/torvalds/linux
repo_name: torvalds/linux
description: Linux kernel source tree
repo_language: C
owner: torvalds
file_changes: filename: pcm_lib.c
change_type: ModificationType.MODIFY
diff: @@ -1886,8 +1886,8 @@ void snd_pcm_period_elapsed(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream)
 		snd_timer_interrupt(substream->timer, 1);
 #endif
  _end:
-	snd_pcm_stream_unlock_irqrestore(substream, flags);
 	kill_fasync(&runtime->fasync, SIGIO, POLL_IN);
+	snd_pcm_stream_unlock_irqrestore(substream, flags);
 }
 
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(snd_pcm_period_elapsed);

programming_language: C