[v2] mq_notify03.c: New test CVE-2021-38604

This test is come from glibc test mq_notify.c.
Implements following logic:
1) Create POSIX message queue.
   Register a notification with mq_notify (using NULL attributes).
   Then immediately unregister the notification with mq_notify.
   Helper thread in a vulnerable version of glibc
   should cause NULL pointer dereference after these steps.
2) Once again, register the same notification.
   Try to send a dummy message.
   Test is considered successfulif the dummy message
   is successfully received by the callback function.

Signed-off-by: Wei Gao <wegao@suse.com>
---
 runtest/cve                                   |  1 +
 runtest/syscalls                              |  1 +
 .../kernel/syscalls/mq_notify/.gitignore      |  1 +
 .../kernel/syscalls/mq_notify/mq_notify03.c   | 99 +++++++++++++++++++
 4 files changed, 102 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 testcases/kernel/syscalls/mq_notify/mq_notify03.c

Hi!

I tried this test on several environments and got the expected results. 
and no problems were encountered.
env1) Test PASSED on glibc2.23-21.fc34 after vulnerability fix.
env2) Test PASSED on glibc2.23-5.fc34 before the regression.
env3) Test FAILED as expected on glibc2.23-16.fc34 after the regression, 
before vulnerability fix.

It looks good from my site.
If there is anything else I should check, please let me know.

Thank you!

On 2023/02/21 11:08, Wei Gao via ltp wrote:
> This test is come from glibc test mq_notify.c.
> Implements following logic:
> 1) Create POSIX message queue.
>     Register a notification with mq_notify (using NULL attributes).
>     Then immediately unregister the notification with mq_notify.
>     Helper thread in a vulnerable version of glibc
>     should cause NULL pointer dereference after these steps.
> 2) Once again, register the same notification.
>     Try to send a dummy message.
>     Test is considered successfulif the dummy message
>     is successfully received by the callback function.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Wei Gao <wegao@suse.com>
> ---
>   runtest/cve                                   |  1 +
>   runtest/syscalls                              |  1 +
>   .../kernel/syscalls/mq_notify/.gitignore      |  1 +
>   .../kernel/syscalls/mq_notify/mq_notify03.c   | 99 +++++++++++++++++++
>   4 files changed, 102 insertions(+)
>   create mode 100644 testcases/kernel/syscalls/mq_notify/mq_notify03.c
> 
> diff --git a/runtest/cve b/runtest/cve
> index 1ba63c2a7..07bcac0b0 100644
> --- a/runtest/cve
> +++ b/runtest/cve
> @@ -74,6 +74,7 @@ cve-2021-26708 vsock01
>   cve-2021-22600 setsockopt09
>   cve-2022-0847 dirtypipe
>   cve-2022-2590 dirtyc0w_shmem
> +cve-2021-38604 mq_notify03
>   # Tests below may cause kernel memory leak
>   cve-2020-25704 perf_event_open03
>   cve-2022-4378 cve-2022-4378
> diff --git a/runtest/syscalls b/runtest/syscalls
> index 81c30402b..536140a3e 100644
> --- a/runtest/syscalls
> +++ b/runtest/syscalls
> @@ -832,6 +832,7 @@ pkey01 pkey01
>   
>   mq_notify01 mq_notify01
>   mq_notify02 mq_notify02
> +mq_notify03 mq_notify03
>   mq_open01 mq_open01
>   mq_timedreceive01 mq_timedreceive01
>   mq_timedsend01 mq_timedsend01
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mq_notify/.gitignore b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mq_notify/.gitignore
> index cca05a7fa..3f9403c05 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mq_notify/.gitignore
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mq_notify/.gitignore
> @@ -1,2 +1,3 @@
>   /mq_notify01
>   /mq_notify02
> +/mq_notify03
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mq_notify/mq_notify03.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mq_notify/mq_notify03.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000..5c322ef0e
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mq_notify/mq_notify03.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,99 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
> +/*
> + * Copyright (c) The GNU Toolchain Authors.
> + * Copyright (c) 2023 Wei Gao <wegao@suse.com>
> + *
> + */
> +
> +/*\
> + * [Description]
> + *
> + * Test for NULL pointer dereference in mq_notify(CVE-2021-38604)
> + *
> + * References links:
> + * - https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28213
> + */
> +
> +#include <errno.h>
> +#include <sys/types.h>
> +#include <sys/stat.h>
> +#include <fcntl.h>
> +#include <unistd.h>
> +#include <mqueue.h>
> +#include <signal.h>
> +#include <stdlib.h>
> +#include <string.h>
> +#include "tst_test.h"
> +#include "tst_safe_posix_ipc.h"
> +
> +static mqd_t m = -1;
> +static const char msg[] = "hello";
> +
> +static void try_null_dereference_cb(union sigval sv)
> +{
> +	char buf[sizeof(msg)];
> +
> +	(void)sv;
> +
> +	TST_EXP_VAL((size_t) mq_receive(m, buf, sizeof(buf), NULL)
> +				, sizeof(buf));
> +	TST_EXP_PASS(memcmp(buf, msg, sizeof(buf)));
> +
> +	exit(0);
> +}
> +
> +static void try_null_dereference(void)
> +{
> +	struct sigevent sev;
> +
> +	memset(&sev, '\0', sizeof(sev));
> +	sev.sigev_notify = SIGEV_THREAD;
> +	sev.sigev_notify_function = try_null_dereference_cb;
> +
> +	/* Step 1: Register & unregister notifier.
> +	 * Helper thread should receive NOTIFY_REMOVED notification.
> +	 * In a vulnerable version of glibc, NULL pointer dereference follows.
> +	 */
> +	TST_EXP_PASS(mq_notify(m, &sev));
> +	TST_EXP_PASS(mq_notify(m, NULL));
> +
> +	/* Step 2: Once again, register notification.
> +	 * Try to send one message.
> +	 * Test is considered successful, if the callback does exit (0).
> +	 */
> +	TST_EXP_PASS(mq_notify(m, &sev));
> +	TST_EXP_PASS(mq_send(m, msg, sizeof(msg), 1));
> +
> +	/* Wait... */
> +	pause();
> +}
> +
> +static void do_test(void)
> +{
> +	static const char m_name[] = "/ltp_mq_notify03";
> +	struct mq_attr m_attr;
> +
> +	memset(&m_attr, '\0', sizeof(m_attr));
> +	m_attr.mq_maxmsg = 1;
> +	m_attr.mq_msgsize = sizeof(msg);
> +
> +	m = SAFE_MQ_OPEN(m_name,
> +			O_RDWR | O_CREAT | O_EXCL,
> +			0600,
> +			&m_attr);
> +
> +	TST_EXP_PASS(mq_unlink(m_name));
> +
> +	try_null_dereference();
> +}
> +
> +
> +static struct tst_test test = {
> +	.test_all = do_test,
> +	.tags = (const struct tst_tag[]) {
> +		{"glibc-git", "b805aebd42"},
> +		{"CVE", "2021-38604"},
> +		{}
> +	},
> +	.needs_root = 1,
> +};

--
Souta Kawahara <souta.kawahara@miraclelinux.com>

On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 03:58:39PM +0900, Souta Kawahara wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> I tried this test on several environments and got the expected results. and
> no problems were encountered.
> env1) Test PASSED on glibc2.23-21.fc34 after vulnerability fix.
> env2) Test PASSED on glibc2.23-5.fc34 before the regression.
> env3) Test FAILED as expected on glibc2.23-16.fc34 after the regression,
> before vulnerability fix.
> 
> It looks good from my site.
> If there is anything else I should check, please let me know.
> 
> Thank you!
Thanks a lot for your verfication :)
> 
> --
> Souta Kawahara <souta.kawahara@miraclelinux.com>

Hi!
Pushed, thanks.