[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMrV8J4Gc_RAWrBaVQRzLKOphxYaFMZ7kWw6tyfuee2cp-Da_w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2026 01:20:34 -0400
From: Mohamed salem Eddah <medsalemeddah@...il.com>
To: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, oss-security@...ts.openwall.com, security@...nel.org,
Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
Subject: Re: CVE request: io_uring zcrx freelist OOB write
Hi,
I think there may be some conflation between the kernel behavior I was
discussing and the exploit ideas in the blog post.
The main point of my report was the observed freelist imbalance /
double-return behavior leading to free_count exceeding num_niovs on a
pre-fix kernel during the scrub + release interaction paths.
Jens pointed out that commit 003049b1c4fb8aabb93febb7d1e49004f6ad653b
("io_uring/zcrx: fix user_ref race between scrub and refill paths")
already addresses that race, and after reviewing the patch more carefully I
agree that it likely overlaps with the condition I was observing.
I was and still am experimenting around the same ZCRX lifetime/refcounting
paths because I found the interaction interesting from a debugging and
research perspective. The blog post reflected some of that ongoing
experimentation and clearly mixed confirmed behavior with incomplete
exploit ideas.
In particular, Jens is right that the modprobe_path section does not make
sense as written in the context of a privilege-escalation chain if the
process already has the required capability to write that sysctl. That part
was exploratory and not well thought out.
I’m also not trying to argue about AI, authorship, or anything else around
that. My point in the thread was simply the kernel behavior itself. The
disassembly I posted was meant to show the unchecked freelist writes on the
pre-fix kernel and explain why I initially believed there was still an
outstanding issue.
At this point I’m not claiming a new unfixed LPE or a separate CVE. It
looks much more likely that what I observed was already addressed by
003049b1c4fb.
I’ll update the blog post to reflect that more clearly so it does not
misrepresent the current understanding of the issue.
Thanks for the explanations and for taking the time to look through it.
On Thu, May 7, 2026 at 10:32 PM Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 07, 2026 at 04:28:56PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On 5/7/26 11:48 AM, Solar Designer wrote:
> > > I only skimmed, but as far as I can tell Mohamed isn't the original
> > > finder of this issue and the report and PoCs are AI-generated, which
> > > could be why Mohamed is not communicating further. It's becoming a
> > > trend - someone sends AI-generated report and doesn't communicate.
> > > Which doesn't mean the report is useless, but it does complicate its
> > > handling.
>
> I'm sorry Mohamed for just assuming you didn't communicate further; I
> got too used to send-and-forget kind of vulnerability reports lately.
>
> > I'm pretty sure that issue was fixed by:
> >
> > commit 003049b1c4fb8aabb93febb7d1e49004f6ad653b
> > Author: Kai Aizen <kai@...ilsploit.com>
> > Date: Wed Feb 18 17:36:41 2026 +0000
> >
> > io_uring/zcrx: fix user_ref race between scrub and refill paths
> >
> > which is already in stable.
> >
> > CC'ing in Pavel, who was inexplicably dropped from the emails, even
> > though he is the one guy that should indeed be on the CC list.
>
> I'm at fault for dropping Pavel. The oss-security list adds Reply-To
> pointing to the list, which at least with Mutt replaces what's in From
> in reply-to-all, and I forgot to override that. I then realized, but
> thought (maybe wrongly) that since Pavel had replied to the thread he
> must be either on the list or on s@k.o anyway. Sorry, and thank you
> Jens for re-adding Pavel.
>
> > > Meanwhile, it looks like there's a blog post (by someone else? I am
> > > confused) on exploitation of this issue, with exploit files attached:
> > >
> > > https://ze3tar.github.io/post-zcrx.html
> >
> > I won't comment too much on this to avoid offending anyone, but I'm a
> > bit puzzled by:
> >
> > "Once we have the address of modprobe_path (from KASLR step above), we
> > write our script path via /proc/sys/kernel/modprobe: c
> >
> > int fd = open("/proc/sys/kernel/modprobe", O_WRONLY);
> > write(fd, "/var/tmp/evil.sh", 16);
> >
> > This sysctl entry writes directly into modprobe_path in kernel memory
> > and is writable with CAP_SYS_ADMIN, which we already have via
> > CAP_NET_ADMIN on container configurations that grant both."
> >
> > as surely the point of a local exploit is, in fact, to gain root in the
> > first place. If you already have CAP_SYS_ADMIN, what is the point?
> >
> > But hey, someone wrote a blog post about something that sounds
> > dangerous.
>
> Oh, wow. That is indeed ridiculous, and puts everything else in this
> report in (greater) doubt. Not only would that require privileges to
> write into that sysctl, but also why determine "the address of
> modprobe_path" if we were going to just use sysctl. The actual code in
> zcrx_lpe.c tries to determine the address, but then does not use the
> address, and does not use sysctl either. So it would not do what's
> claimed even if run as root, as far as I can see. Note that "mp" is a
> local variable that's only checked for non-NULL and not passed anywhere:
>
> uint64_t mp = kallsyms_addr("modprobe_path");
> uint64_t kt = kallsyms_addr("_text");
> if (mp) printf("[+] modprobe_path @ 0x%lx\n", mp);
> else printf("[!] modprobe_path unreadable (kptr_restrict)\n");
> if (kt) printf("[+] _text @ 0x%lx\n", kt);
>
> time_t t0 = write_evil_sh();
> printf("[*] evil.sh written (t0=%ld)\n", t0);
>
> if (method == 0 || method == 1) method_a(ifname);
> if (method == 0 || method == 2) method_b(ifname);
> if (method == 0 || method == 3) method_c(ifname);
>
> printf("\n[*] dmesg:\n");
> system("dmesg 2>/dev/null | tail -20 | "
> "grep -iE 'warn_on|bug:|oob|free_count|zcrx|niov|kasan|panic' "
> "|| echo ' (nothing)'" );
>
> if (mp) {
> printf("\n[*] modprobe escalation...\n");
> trigger_modprobe(t0);
> escalate(t0);
> }
>
> printf("\n[*] done\n");
> return 0;
>
> So AI slop it is. The question is whether there's any substance here?
>
> Alexander
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
