netdev - Re: [PATCH net] tun, bpf: fix suspicious RCU usage in tun_{attach,detach}

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 31 Mar 2016 21:24:12 +0200
From:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, daniel@...earbox.net
Cc:	eric.dumazet@...il.com, alexei.starovoitov@...il.com,
	mkubecek@...e.cz, sasha.levin@...cle.com, jslaby@...e.cz,
	mst@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] tun, bpf: fix suspicious RCU usage in
 tun_{attach,detach}_filter

Hello,

On 31.03.2016 21:21, David Miller wrote:
> From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
> Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 14:16:18 +0200
>
>> On 03/31/2016 01:59 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 13:35 +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>>>
>>>> +static inline bool sock_owned_externally(const struct sock *sk)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	return sk->sk_flags & (1UL << SOCK_EXTERNAL_OWNER);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>
>>> Have you reinvented sock_flag(sl, SOCK_EXTERNAL_OWNER) ? ;)
>>>
>>> Anyway, using a flag for this purpose sounds overkill to me.
>>
>> Right.
>>
>>> Setting it is a way to 'fool' lockdep anyway...
>>
>> Yep, correct, we'd be fooling the tun case, so this diff doesn't
>> really make it any better there.
>
> I like the currently proposed patch where TUN says that RTNL is what
> the synchronizing element is.
>
> Maybe we could make a helper of some sort but since we only have once
> case like this is just overkill.
>
> Alexei, do you really mind if I apply Danile's patch?

I proposed the following patch to Daniel and he seemed to like it. I
was just waiting for his feedback and tags and wanted to send it out
then.

What do you think?

lockdep_sock_is_held does also have some other applications in other
parts of the source.

Bye,
Hannes

diff --git a/include/net/sock.h b/include/net/sock.h
index 255d3e03727b73..651b84a38cfb9b 100644
--- a/include/net/sock.h
+++ b/include/net/sock.h
@@ -1330,6 +1330,12 @@ static inline void sock_release_ownership(struct 
sock *sk)
  	sk->sk_lock.owned = 0;
  }

+static inline bool lockdep_sock_is_held(struct sock *sk)
+{
+	return lockdep_is_held(&sk->sk_lock) ||
+	       lockdep_is_held(&sk->sk_lock.slock);
+}
+
  /*
   * Macro so as to not evaluate some arguments when
   * lockdep is not enabled.
diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c
index 4b81b71171b4ce..8ab270d5ce5507 100644
--- a/net/core/filter.c
+++ b/net/core/filter.c
@@ -1166,7 +1166,8 @@ static int __sk_attach_prog(struct bpf_prog *prog, 
struct sock *sk)
  	}

  	old_fp = rcu_dereference_protected(sk->sk_filter,
-					   sock_owned_by_user(sk));
+					   lockdep_rtnl_is_held() ||
+					   lockdep_sock_is_held(sk));
  	rcu_assign_pointer(sk->sk_filter, fp);

  	if (old_fp)
@@ -2259,7 +2260,9 @@ int sk_detach_filter(struct sock *sk)
  		return -EPERM;

  	filter = rcu_dereference_protected(sk->sk_filter,
-					   sock_owned_by_user(sk));
+					   lockdep_rtnl_is_held() ||
+					   lockdep_sock_is_held(sk));
+
  	if (filter) {
  		RCU_INIT_POINTER(sk->sk_filter, NULL);
  		sk_filter_uncharge(sk, filter);

c