netdev - Re: [Patch bpf-next v2 2/9] sock: introduce sk_prot->update

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:   Tue, 9 Mar 2021 09:53:31 -0800
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Cc:     Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        duanxiongchun@...edance.com,
        Dongdong Wang <wangdongdong.6@...edance.com>,
        Jiang Wang <jiang.wang@...edance.com>,
        Cong Wang <cong.wang@...edance.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch bpf-next v2 2/9] sock: introduce sk_prot->update_proto()

On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 5:55 PM John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Cong Wang wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 4:27 PM John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Cong Wang wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 10:23 AM Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 8:22 AM Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 02:37, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >  static inline void sk_psock_restore_proto(struct sock *sk,
> > > > > > >                                           struct sk_psock *psock)
> > > > > > >  {
> > > > > > >         sk->sk_prot->unhash = psock->saved_unhash;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not related to your patch set, but why do an extra restore of
> > > > > > sk_prot->unhash here? At this point sk->sk_prot is one of our tcp_bpf
> > > > > > / udp_bpf protos, so overwriting that seems wrong?
> > >
> > > "extra"? restore_proto should only be called when the psock ref count
> > > is zero and we need to transition back to the original socks proto
> > > handlers. To trigger this we can simply delete a sock from the map.
> > > In the case where we are deleting the psock overwriting the tcp_bpf
> > > protos is exactly what we want.?
> >
> > Why do you want to overwrite tcp_bpf_prots->unhash? Overwriting
> > tcp_bpf_prots is correct, but overwriting tcp_bpf_prots->unhash is not.
> > Because once you overwrite it, the next time you use it to replace
> > sk->sk_prot, it would be a different one rather than sock_map_unhash():
> >
> > // tcp_bpf_prots->unhash == sock_map_unhash
> > sk_psock_restore_proto();
> > // Now  tcp_bpf_prots->unhash is inet_unhash
> > ...
> > sk_psock_update_proto();
> > // sk->sk_proto is now tcp_bpf_prots again,
> > // so its ->unhash now is inet_unhash
> > // but it should be sock_map_unhash here
>
> Right, we can fix this on the TLS side. I'll push a fix shortly.

Are you still working on this? If kTLS still needs it, then we can
have something like this:

diff --git a/include/linux/skmsg.h b/include/linux/skmsg.h
index 8edbbf5f2f93..5eb617df7f48 100644
--- a/include/linux/skmsg.h
+++ b/include/linux/skmsg.h
@@ -349,8 +349,8 @@ static inline void sk_psock_update_proto(struct sock *sk,
 static inline void sk_psock_restore_proto(struct sock *sk,
                                          struct sk_psock *psock)
 {
-       sk->sk_prot->unhash = psock->saved_unhash;
        if (inet_csk_has_ulp(sk)) {
+               sk->sk_prot->unhash = psock->saved_unhash;
                tcp_update_ulp(sk, psock->sk_proto, psock->saved_write_space);
        } else {
                sk->sk_write_space = psock->saved_write_space;


Thanks.