🔍 CVE-2024-26935

🇺🇸 원문 (English)

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: scsi: core: Fix unremoved procfs host directory regression Commit fc663711b944 ("scsi: core: Remove the /proc/scsi/${proc_name} directory earlier") fixed a bug related to modules loading/unloading, by adding a call to scsi_proc_hostdir_rm() on scsi_remove_host(). But that led to a potential duplicate call to the hostdir_rm() routine, since it's also called from scsi_host_dev_release(). That triggered a regression report, which was then fixed by commit be03df3d4bfe ("scsi: core: Fix a procfs host directory removal regression"). The fix just dropped the hostdir_rm() call from dev_release(). But it happens that this proc directory is created on scsi_host_alloc(), and that function "pairs" with scsi_host_dev_release(), while scsi_remove_host() pairs with scsi_add_host(). In other words, it seems the reason for removing the proc directory on dev_release() was meant to cover cases in which a SCSI host structure was allocated, but the call to scsi_add_host() didn't happen. And that pattern happens to exist in some error paths, for example. Syzkaller causes that by using USB raw gadget device, error'ing on usb-storage driver, at usb_stor_probe2(). By checking that path, we can see that the BadDevice label leads to a scsi_host_put() after a SCSI host allocation, but there's no call to scsi_add_host() in such path. That leads to messages like this in dmesg (and a leak of the SCSI host proc structure): usb-storage 4-1:87.51: USB Mass Storage device detected proc_dir_entry 'scsi/usb-storage' already registered WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 3519 at fs/proc/generic.c:377 proc_register+0x347/0x4e0 fs/proc/generic.c:376 The proper fix seems to still call scsi_proc_hostdir_rm() on dev_release(), but guard that with the state check for SHOST_CREATED; there is even a comment in scsi_host_dev_release() detailing that: such conditional is meant for cases where the SCSI host was allocated but there was no calls to {add,remove}_host(), like the usb-storage case. This is what we propose here and with that, the error path of usb-storage does not trigger the warning anymore.