Date:	Tue, 19 Jan 2016 13:37:52 -0500
From:	Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>
To:	Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, dvyukov@...gle.com,
	eric.dumazet@...il.com, syzkaller@...glegroups.com, kcc@...gle.com,
	glider@...gle.com, sasha.levin@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] sctp: do sanity checks before migrating the asoc

On 01/19/2016 10:59 AM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> Em 19-01-2016 12:19, Vlad Yasevich escreveu:
>> On 01/15/2016 04:40 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 08:11:03PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 7:46 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
>>>> <marcelo.leitner@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 09:42:27PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The following program leads to a leak of two sock objects:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On commit 8513342170278468bac126640a5d2d12ffbff106 (Dec 28).
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm afraid I cannot reproduce this one?
>>>>> I enabled dynprintk at sctp_destroy_sock and it does print twice when I
>>>>> run this test app.
>>>>> Also added debugs to check association lifetime, and then it was
>>>>> destroyed. Same for endpoint.
>>>>>
>>>>> Checking with trace-cmd, both calls to sctp_close() resulted in
>>>>> sctp_destroy_sock() being called.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for sock_hold/put, they are matched too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ideas? Log is below for double checking
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hummm... I can reproduce it pretty reliably.
>>>>
>>>> [  197.459024] kmemleak: 11 new suspected memory leaks (see
>>>> /sys/kernel/debug/kmemleak)
>>>> [  307.494874] kmemleak: 409 new suspected memory leaks (see
>>>> /sys/kernel/debug/kmemleak)
>>>> [  549.784022] kmemleak: 125 new suspected memory leaks (see
>>>> /sys/kernel/debug/kmemleak)
>>>>
>>>> I double checked via /proc/slabinfo:
>>>>
>>>> SCTPv6              4373   4420   2368   13    8 : tunables    0    0
>>>>    0 : slabdata    340    340      0
>>>>
>>>> SCTPv6 starts with almost 0, but grows infinitely while I run the
>>>> program in a loop.
>>>>
>>>> Here is my SCTP related configs:
>>>>
>>>> CONFIG_IP_SCTP=y
>>>> CONFIG_NET_SCTPPROBE=y
>>>> CONFIG_SCTP_DBG_OBJCNT=y
>>>> # CONFIG_SCTP_DEFAULT_COOKIE_HMAC_MD5 is not set
>>>> # CONFIG_SCTP_DEFAULT_COOKIE_HMAC_SHA1 is not set
>>>> CONFIG_SCTP_DEFAULT_COOKIE_HMAC_NONE=y
>>>> # CONFIG_SCTP_COOKIE_HMAC_MD5 is not set
>>>> # CONFIG_SCTP_COOKIE_HMAC_SHA1 is not set
>>>>
>>>> I am on commit 67990608c8b95d2b8ccc29932376ae73d5818727 and I don't
>>>> seem to have any sctp-related changes on top.
>>>
>>> Ok, now I can. Enabled slub debugs, now I cannot see calls to
>>> sctp_destroy_sock. I see to sctp_close, but not to sctp_destroy_sock.
>>>
>>> And SCTPv6 grew by 2 sockets after the execution.
>>>
>>> Further checking, it's a race within SCTP asoc migration:
>>> thread 0                thread 1
>>> - app creates a sock
>>>                          - sends a packet to itself
>>>               - sctp will create an asoc and do implicit
>>>                 handshake
>>>               - send the packet
>>> - listen()
>>> - accept() is called and
>>>    that asoc is migrated
>>>                   - packet is delivered
>>>                     - skb->destructor is called, BUT:
>>>
>>> (note that if accept() is called after packet is delivered and skb is freed, it
>>> doesn't happen)
>>>
>>> static void sctp_wfree(struct sk_buff *skb)
>>> {
>>>          struct sctp_chunk *chunk = skb_shinfo(skb)->destructor_arg;
>>>          struct sctp_association *asoc = chunk->asoc;
>>>          struct sock *sk = asoc->base.sk;
>>> ...
>>>          atomic_sub(sizeof(struct sctp_chunk), &sk->sk_wmem_alloc);
>>>
>>> and it's pointing to the new socket already. So one socket gets a leak
>>> on sk_wmem_alloc and another gets a negative value:
>>>
>>> --- a/net/sctp/socket.c
>>> +++ b/net/sctp/socket.c
>>> @@ -1537,12 +1537,14 @@ static void sctp_close(struct sock *sk, long timeout)
>>>          /* Hold the sock, since sk_common_release() will put sock_put()
>>>           * and we have just a little more cleanup.
>>>           */
>>> +       printk("%s sock_hold %p\n", __func__, sk);
>>>          sock_hold(sk);
>>>          sk_common_release(sk);
>>>
>>>          bh_unlock_sock(sk);
>>>          spin_unlock_bh(&net->sctp.addr_wq_lock);
>>>
>>> +       printk("%s sock_put %p %d %d\n", __func__, sk, atomic_read(&sk->sk_refcnt),
>>> atomic_read(&sk->sk_wmem_alloc));
>>>          sock_put(sk);
>>>
>>>          SCTP_DBG_OBJCNT_DEC(sock);
>>>
>>>
>>> gave me:
>>>
>>> [   99.456944] sctp_close sock_hold ffff880137df8940
>>> ...
>>> [   99.457337] sctp_close sock_put ffff880137df8940 1 -247
>>> [   99.458313] sctp_close sock_hold ffff880137dfef00
>>> ...
>>> [   99.458383] sctp_close sock_put ffff880137dfef00 1 249
>>>
>>> That's why the socket is not freed..
>>>
>>
>> Interesting...  sctp_sock_migrate() accounts for this race in the
>> receive buffer, but not the send buffer.
>>
>> On the one hand I am not crazy about the connect-to-self scenario.
>> On the other, I think to support it correctly, we should support
>> skb migrations for the send case just like we do the receive case.
> 
> 
> Yes, not thrilled here either about connect-to-self.
> 
> But there is a big difference on how both works. For rx we can just look for wanted skbs
> in rx queue, as they aren't going anywhere, but for tx I don't think we can easily block
> sctp_wfree() call because that may be happening on another CPU (or am I mistaken here?
> sctp still doesn't have RFS but even irqbalance could affect this AFAICT) and more than
> one skb may be in transit at a time.

The way it's done now, we wouldn't have to block sctp_wfree.  Chunks are released under
lock when they are acked, so we are OK here.  The tx completions will just put 1 byte back
to the socket associated with the tx'ed skb, and that should still be ok as
sctp_packet_release_owner will call sk_free().

> The lockings for this on sctp_chunk would be pretty nasty, I think, and normal usage lets
> say wouldn't be benefit from it. Considering the possible migration, as we can't trust
> chunk->asoc right away in sctp_wfree, the lock would reside in sctp_chunk and we would
> have to go on taking locks one by one on tx queue for the migration. Ugh ;)
> 

No, the chunks manipulation is done under the socket locket so I don't think we have to
worry about a per chunk lock.  We should be able to trust chunk->asoc pointer always
because each chunk holds a ref on the association.   The only somewhat ugly thing
about moving tx chunks is that you have to potentially walk a lot of lists to move
things around.  There are all the lists in the sctp_outqueue struct, plus the
per-transport retransmit list...

Even though the above seems to be a PITA, my main reason for recommending this is
that can happen in normal situations too.  Consider a very busy association that is
transferring a lot of a data on a 1-to-many socket.  The app decides to move do a
peel-off, and we could now be stuck not being able to peel-off for a quite a while
if there is a hick-up in the network and we have to rtx multiple times.

-vlad

> Marcelo
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists