netdev - Re: net: possible deadlock in skb_queue

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 04 May 2017 16:05:29 +0200
From:   Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To:     Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
        Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
Cc:     Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
        Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: net: possible deadlock in skb_queue_tail

On Thu, 2017-05-04 at 15:49 +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 3:56 AM, Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de> wrote:
> > Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com> wrote:
> > 
> > [ CC Paolo ]
> > 
> > > I've got the following error report while fuzzing the kernel with syzkaller.
> > > 
> > > On commit c470abd4fde40ea6a0846a2beab642a578c0b8cd (4.10).
> > > 
> > > Unfortunately I can't reproduce it.
> > 
> > This needs NETLINK_BROADCAST_ERROR enabled on a netlink socket
> > that then subscribes to netfilter conntrack (ctnetlink) events.
> > probably syzkaller did this by accident -- impressive.
> > 
> > (one task is the ctnetlink event redelivery worker
> >  which won't be scheduled otherwise).
> > 
> > > ======================================================
> > > [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> > > 4.10.0-rc8+ #201 Not tainted
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > kworker/0:2/1404 is trying to acquire lock:
> > >  (&(&list->lock)->rlock#3){+.-...}, at: [<ffffffff8335b23f>]
> > > skb_queue_tail+0xcf/0x2f0 net/core/skbuff.c:2478
> > > 
> > > but task is already holding lock:
> > >  (&(&pcpu->lock)->rlock){+.-...}, at: [<ffffffff8366b55f>] spin_lock
> > > include/linux/spinlock.h:302 [inline]
> > >  (&(&pcpu->lock)->rlock){+.-...}, at: [<ffffffff8366b55f>]
> > > ecache_work_evict_list+0xaf/0x590
> > > net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_ecache.c:48
> > > 
> > > which lock already depends on the new lock.
> > 
> > Cong is correct, this is a false positive.
> > 
> > However we should fix this splat.
> > 
> > Paolo, this happens since 7c13f97ffde63cc792c49ec1513f3974f2f05229
> > ('udp: do fwd memory scheduling on dequeue'), before this
> > commit kfree_skb() was invoked outside of the locked section in
> > first_packet_length().
> > 
> > cpu 0 call chain:
> > - first_packet_length (hold udp sk_receive_queue lock)
> >    - kfree_skb
> >       - nf_conntrack_destroy
> >          - spin_lock(net->ct.pcpu->lock)
> > 
> > cpu 1 call chain:
> > - ecache_work_evict_list
> >   - spin_lock( net->ct.pcpu->lock)
> >   - nf_conntrack_event
> >      - aquire netlink socket sk_receive_queue
> > 
> > So this could only ever deadlock if a netlink socket
> > calls kfree_skb while holding its sk_receive_queue lock, but afaics
> > this is never the case.
> > 
> > There are two ways to avoid this splat (other than lockdep annotation):
> > 
> > 1. re-add the list to first_packet_length() and free the
> > skbs outside of locked section.
> > 
> > 2. change ecache_work_evict_list to not call nf_conntrack_event()
> > while holding the pcpu lock.
> > 
> > doing #2 might be a good idea anyway to avoid potential deadlock
> > when kfree_skb gets invoked while other cpu holds its sk_receive_queue
> > lock, I'll have a look if this is feasible.
> 
> Hi!
> 
> Any updates on this?
> 
> I might have missed the patch if there was one.
> 
> Thanks!

That has should be fixed via lockdep annotation with
581319c58600b54612c417aff32ae9bbd79f4cdb

Paolo