| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1576628063.20140327110053@eikelenboom.it>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 11:00:53 +0100
From: Sander Eikelenboom <linux@...elenboom.it>
To: Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@...rix.com>
CC: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>, annie li <annie.li@...cle.com>,
Zoltan Kiss <zoltan.kiss@...rix.com>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xen.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>,
Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-unstable Linux 3.14-rc3 and 3.13 Network troubles "bisected"
Thursday, March 27, 2014, 10:47:02 AM, you wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sander Eikelenboom [mailto:linux@...elenboom.it]
>> Sent: 26 March 2014 19:57
>> To: Paul Durrant
>> Cc: Wei Liu; annie li; Zoltan Kiss; xen-devel@...ts.xen.org; Ian Campbell; linux-
>> kernel; netdev@...r.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-unstable Linux 3.14-rc3 and 3.13 Network
>> troubles "bisected"
>>
>>
>> Wednesday, March 26, 2014, 6:48:15 PM, you wrote:
>>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Paul Durrant
>> >> Sent: 26 March 2014 17:47
>> >> To: 'Sander Eikelenboom'
>> >> Cc: Wei Liu; annie li; Zoltan Kiss; xen-devel@...ts.xen.org; Ian Campbell;
>> linux-
>> >> kernel; netdev@...r.kernel.org
>> >> Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Xen-unstable Linux 3.14-rc3 and 3.13 Network
>> >> troubles "bisected"
>> >>
>> >> Re-send shortened version...
>> >>
>> >> > -----Original Message-----
>> >> > From: Sander Eikelenboom [mailto:linux@...elenboom.it]
>> >> > Sent: 26 March 2014 16:54
>> >> > To: Paul Durrant
>> >> > Cc: Wei Liu; annie li; Zoltan Kiss; xen-devel@...ts.xen.org; Ian Campbell;
>> >> linux-
>> >> > kernel; netdev@...r.kernel.org
>> >> > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-unstable Linux 3.14-rc3 and 3.13 Network
>> >> > troubles "bisected"
>> >> >
>> >> [snip]
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> - When processing an SKB we end up in "xenvif_gop_frag_copy"
>> while
>> >> > prod
>> >> > >> == cons ... but we still have bytes and size left ..
>> >> > >> - start_new_rx_buffer() has returned true ..
>> >> > >> - so we end up in get_next_rx_buffer
>> >> > >> - this does a RING_GET_REQUEST and ups cons ..
>> >> > >> - and we end up with a bad grant reference.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Sometimes we are saved by the bell .. since additional slots have
>> >> become
>> >> > >> free (you see cons become > prod in "get_next_rx_buffer" but
>> shortly
>> >> > after
>> >> > >> that prod is increased ..
>> >> > >> just in time to not cause a overrun).
>> >> > >>
>> >> >
>> >> > > Ah, but hang on... There's a BUG_ON meta_slots_used >
>> >> > max_slots_needed, so if we are overflowing the worst-case calculation
>> >> then
>> >> > why is that BUG_ON not firing?
>> >> >
>> >> > You mean:
>> >> > sco = (struct skb_cb_overlay *)skb->cb;
>> >> > sco->meta_slots_used = xenvif_gop_skb(skb, &npo);
>> >> > BUG_ON(sco->meta_slots_used > max_slots_needed);
>> >> >
>> >> > in "get_next_rx_buffer" ?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> That code excerpt is from net_rx_action(),isn't it?
>> >>
>> >> > I don't know .. at least now it doesn't crash dom0 and therefore not my
>> >> > complete machine and since tcp is recovering from a failed packet :-)
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Well, if the code calculating max_slots_needed were underestimating
>> then
>> >> the BUG_ON() should fire. If it is not firing in your case then this suggests
>> >> your problem lies elsewhere, or that meta_slots_used is not equal to the
>> >> number of ring slots consumed.
>> >>
>> >> > But probably because "npo->copy_prod++" seems to be used for the
>> frags
>> >> ..
>> >> > and it isn't added to npo->meta_prod ?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> meta_slots_used is calculated as the value of meta_prod at return (from
>> >> xenvif_gop_skb()) minus the value on entry , and if you look back up the
>> >> code then you can see that meta_prod is incremented every time
>> >> RING_GET_REQUEST() is evaluated. So, we must be consuming a slot
>> without
>> >> evaluating RING_GET_REQUEST() and I think that's exactly what's
>> >> happening... Right at the bottom of xenvif_gop_frag_copy() req_cons is
>> >> simply incremented in the case of a GSO. So the BUG_ON() is indeed off
>> by
>> >> one.
>> >>
>>
>> > Can you re-test with the following patch applied?
>>
>> > Paul
>>
>> > diff --git a/drivers/net/xen-netback/netback.c b/drivers/net/xen-
>> netback/netback
>> > index 438d0c0..4f24220 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/net/xen-netback/netback.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/net/xen-netback/netback.c
>> > @@ -482,6 +482,8 @@ static void xenvif_rx_action(struct xenvif *vif)
>>
>> > while ((skb = skb_dequeue(&vif->rx_queue)) != NULL) {
>> > RING_IDX max_slots_needed;
>> > + RING_IDX old_req_cons;
>> > + RING_IDX ring_slots_used;
>> > int i;
>>
>> > /* We need a cheap worse case estimate for the number of
>> > @@ -511,8 +513,12 @@ static void xenvif_rx_action(struct xenvif *vif)
>> > vif->rx_last_skb_slots = 0;
>>
>> > sco = (struct skb_cb_overlay *)skb->cb;
>> > +
>> > + old_req_cons = vif->rx.req_cons;
>> > sco->meta_slots_used = xenvif_gop_skb(skb, &npo);
>> > - BUG_ON(sco->meta_slots_used > max_slots_needed);
>> > + ring_slots_used = vif->rx.req_cons - old_req_cons;
>> > +
>> > + BUG_ON(ring_slots_used > max_slots_needed);
>>
>> > __skb_queue_tail(&rxq, skb);
>> > }
>>
>> That blew pretty fast .. on that BUG_ON
>>
> Good. That's what should have happened :-)
Yes .. and No ..
We shouldn't be there in the first place :-)
Since now every miscalculation in the needed slots leads to a nice remote DOS attack ..
(since we now crash the vif kthread)
it would be nice to have a worst case slot calculation .. with some theoretical guarantees
--
Sander
> Paul
>> [ 290.218182] ------------[ cut here ]------------
>> [ 290.225425] kernel BUG at drivers/net/xen-netback/netback.c:664!
>> [ 290.232717] invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP
>> [ 290.239875] Modules linked in:
>> [ 290.246923] CPU: 0 PID: 10447 Comm: vif7.0 Not tainted 3.13.6-20140326-
>> nbdebug35+ #1
>> [ 290.254040] Hardware name: MSI MS-7640/890FXA-GD70 (MS-7640) , BIOS
>> V1.8B1 09/13/2010
>> [ 290.261313] task: ffff880055d16480 ti: ffff88004cb7e000 task.ti:
>> ffff88004cb7e000
>> [ 290.268713] RIP: e030:[<ffffffff81780430>] [<ffffffff81780430>]
>> xenvif_rx_action+0x1650/0x1670
>> [ 290.276193] RSP: e02b:ffff88004cb7fc28 EFLAGS: 00010202
>> [ 290.283555] RAX: 0000000000000006 RBX: ffff88004c630000 RCX:
>> 3fffffffffffffff
>> [ 290.290908] RDX: 00000000ffffffff RSI: ffff88004c630940 RDI:
>> 0000000000048e7b
>> [ 290.298325] RBP: ffff88004cb7fde8 R08: 0000000000007bc9 R09:
>> 0000000000000005
>> [ 290.305809] R10: ffff88004cb7fd28 R11: ffffc90012690600 R12:
>> 0000000000000004
>> [ 290.313217] R13: ffff8800536a84e0 R14: 0000000000000001 R15:
>> ffff88004c637618
>> [ 290.320521] FS: 00007f1d3030c700(0000) GS:ffff88005f600000(0000)
>> knlGS:0000000000000000
>> [ 290.327839] CS: e033 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 000000008005003b
>> [ 290.335216] CR2: ffffffffff600400 CR3: 0000000058537000 CR4:
>> 0000000000000660
>> [ 290.342732] Stack:
>> [ 290.350129] ffff88004cb7fd2c ffff880000000005 ffff88004cb7fd28
>> ffffffff810f7fc8
>> [ 290.357652] ffff880055d16b50 ffffffff00000407 ffff880000000000
>> ffffffff00000000
>> [ 290.365048] ffff880055d16b50 ffff880000000001 ffff880000000001
>> ffffffff00000000
>> [ 290.372461] Call Trace:
>> [ 290.379806] [<ffffffff810f7fc8>] ? __lock_acquire+0x418/0x2220
>> [ 290.387211] [<ffffffff810df5f6>] ? finish_task_switch+0x46/0xf0
>> [ 290.394552] [<ffffffff81781400>] xenvif_kthread+0x40/0x190
>> [ 290.401808] [<ffffffff810f05e0>] ? __init_waitqueue_head+0x60/0x60
>> [ 290.408993] [<ffffffff817813c0>] ? xenvif_stop_queue+0x60/0x60
>> [ 290.416238] [<ffffffff810d4f24>] kthread+0xe4/0x100
>> [ 290.423428] [<ffffffff81b4cf30>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x30/0x50
>> [ 290.430615] [<ffffffff810d4e40>] ? __init_kthread_worker+0x70/0x70
>> [ 290.437793] [<ffffffff81b4e13c>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
>> [ 290.444945] [<ffffffff810d4e40>] ? __init_kthread_worker+0x70/0x70
>> [ 290.452091] Code: fd ff ff 48 8b b5 f0 fe ff ff 48 c7 c2 10 98 ce 81 31 c0 48 8b
>> be c8 7c 00 00 48 c7 c6 f0 f1 fd 81 e8 35 be 24 00 e9 ba f8 ff ff <0f> 0b 0f 0b 41
>> bf 01 00 00 00 e9 55 f6 ff ff 0f 0b 66 66 66 66
>> [ 290.467121] RIP [<ffffffff81780430>] xenvif_rx_action+0x1650/0x1670
>> [ 290.474436] RSP <ffff88004cb7fc28>
>> [ 290.482400] ---[ end trace 2fcf9e9ae26950b3 ]---
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists