Bug 784674 - nss should protect against being called before nss_Init
Summary: nss should protect against being called before nss_Init
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6
Classification: Red Hat
Component: nss
Version: 6.3
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
high
high
Target Milestone: rc
: ---
Assignee: Elio Maldonado Batiz
QA Contact: Aleš Mareček
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 784672
Blocks: 784676 789043
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2012-01-25 19:18 UTC by Elio Maldonado Batiz
Modified: 2012-06-20 07:23 UTC (History)
11 users (show)

Fixed In Version: nss-3.13.1-2.el6
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of: 784672
: 784676 (view as bug list)
Environment:
Last Closed: 2012-06-20 07:23:49 UTC
Target Upstream Version:


Attachments (Terms of Use)
Patch: make sure the initLock has been initialized in every case we use it. (1.78 KB, patch)
2012-01-25 19:55 UTC, Bob Relyea
no flags Details | Diff


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Product Errata RHSA-2012:0973 0 normal SHIPPED_LIVE Moderate: nss, nss-util, and nspr security, bug fix, and enhancement update 2012-06-19 19:28:14 UTC

Description Elio Maldonado Batiz 2012-01-25 19:18:21 UTC
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #784672 +++

beginning with nss 3.13 there is code like this:

SECStatus
NSS_RegisterShutdown(NSS_ShutdownFunc sFunc, void *appData)
{
    int i;

    PZ_Lock(nssInitLock);

The problem is that nssInitLock is NULL until nss_Init() is called, PZ_Lock will crash if called with NULL, and there are some poorly written applications that may call NSS_RegisterShutdown() and other functions before calling nss_Init().

Comment 2 Bob Relyea 2012-01-25 19:43:50 UTC
The correct thread-safe fix here would be to add the following code before references to PZ_Lock(nssInitLock):

+ /* make sure our lock and condition variable are initialized one and only
+ * one time */
+ if (PR_CallOnce(&nssInitOnce, nss_doLockInit) != PR_SUCCESS) {
+ return SECFailure;
+ }
+

This code should be added to:

 NSS_RegisterShutdown()
 NSS_Shutdown()
 NSS_ShutdownContext()

This problem exists in upstream NSS as well.

bob

Comment 3 Rich Megginson 2012-01-25 19:45:23 UTC
This causes crashes admin server in Red Hat Directory Server/389 because of
mod_nss https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=618466 because mod_nss
calls SSL_ClearSessionCache() during shutdown without checking to see if
NSS_IsInitialized() is true.

I can see where there is a chicken/egg problem here
    PZ_Lock(nssInitLock);
    if (!NSS_IsInitialized()) {

you have to acquire the nssInitLock to make sure nssIsInitted isn't changed out
from under you, but nssInitLock is NULL if nssIsInitted is 0.

So one way to guard against using NULL nssInitLock would be to call:
    /* make sure our lock and condition variable are initialized one and only
     * one time */ 
    if (PR_CallOnce(&nssInitOnce, nss_doLockInit) != PR_SUCCESS) {
 return SECFailure;
    }

before the first attempt to use nssInitLock in any function that uses
nssInitLock.  That might be too heavyweight.

another approach would be to use an atomic integer for nssIsInitted.  NSPR
provides pratom.h.  That way you could be guaranteed that all accesses of
nssIsInitted would be implicitly protected.

The best approach would be to use static lock initialization like
 static pthread_mutex_t nssInitLock = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
but I do not think NSPR has support for static PR_Lock initialization.

Comment 4 Bob Relyea 2012-01-25 19:55:45 UTC
Created attachment 557514 [details]
Patch: make sure the initLock has been initialized in every case we use it.

Comment 5 Bob Relyea 2012-01-25 20:00:33 UTC
Clearly Rich and I reach the same conclusions (see Comment 2 and 3).

As for using atomic integers: that's how PR_CallOnce() is implemented. It's meant to be relatively lightweight, and NSS uses it in cases that are far more common than init, shutdown, or register.

bob

Comment 26 errata-xmlrpc 2012-06-20 07:23:49 UTC
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2012-0973.html


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.