[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <27477e2a-ddfa-4e80-7f8c-18e4f5ff4990@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 21:07:07 +0800
From: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>
To: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
CC: "weiyongjun (A)" <weiyongjun1@...wei.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
<edumazet@...gle.com>, <brouer@...hat.com>, <mst@...hat.com>,
<lirongqing@...du.com>,
nicolas dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>,
<3chas3@...il.com>, <wangli39@...du.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tun: Fix use-after-free in tun_net_xmit
On 2019/4/29 10:23, Jason Wang wrote:
>
> On 2019/4/29 上午1:59, Cong Wang wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 12:51 AM Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>> tun_net_xmit() doesn't have the chance to
>>>> access the change because it holding the rcu_read_lock().
>>>
>>>
>>> The problem is the following codes:
>>>
>>>
>>> --tun->numqueues;
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> synchronize_net();
>>>
>>> We need make sure the decrement of tun->numqueues be visible to readers
>>> after synchronize_net(). And in tun_net_xmit():
>>
>> It doesn't matter at all. Readers are okay to read it even they still use the
>> stale tun->numqueues, as long as the tfile is not freed readers can read
>> whatever they want...
>
> This is only true if we set SOCK_RCU_FREE, isn't it?
>
>>
>> The decrement of tun->numqueues is just how we unpublish the old
>> tfile, it is still valid for readers to read it _after_ unpublish, we only need
>> to worry about free, not about unpublish. This is the whole spirit of RCU.
>>
>
> The point is we don't convert tun->numqueues to RCU but use
> synchronize_net().
>
>> You need to rethink about my SOCK_RCU_FREE patch.
>
> The code is wrote before SOCK_RCU_FREE is introduced and assume no
> de-reference from device after synchronize_net(). It doesn't harm to
> figure out the root cause which may give us more confidence to the fix
> (e.g like SOCK_RCU_FREE).
>
> I don't object to fix with SOCK_RCU_FREE, but then we should remove
> the redundant synchronize_net(). But I still prefer to synchronize
> everything explicitly like (completely untested):
>
>>>From df91f77d35a6aa7943b6f2a7d4b329990896a0fe Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 10:21:06 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] tuntap: synchronize through tfiles instead of numqueues
>
> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/tun.c | 11 +++++------
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/tun.c b/drivers/net/tun.c
> index 80bff1b4ec17..03715f605fb5 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/tun.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/tun.c
> @@ -698,6 +698,7 @@ static void __tun_detach(struct tun_file *tfile, bool clean)
>
> rcu_assign_pointer(tun->tfiles[index],
> tun->tfiles[tun->numqueues - 1]);
> + rcu_assign_pointer(tun->tfiles[tun->numqueues], NULL);
> ntfile = rtnl_dereference(tun->tfiles[index]);
move here to avoid NULL pointer dereference, it works for me
rcu_assign_pointer(tun->tfiles[tun->numqueues -1 ], NULL);
> ntfile->queue_index = index;
>
> @@ -1082,7 +1083,7 @@ static netdev_tx_t tun_net_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev)
> tfile = rcu_dereference(tun->tfiles[txq]);
>
> /* Drop packet if interface is not attached */
> - if (txq >= tun->numqueues)
> + if (!tfile)
> goto drop;
>
> if (!rcu_dereference(tun->steering_prog))
> @@ -1305,15 +1306,13 @@ static int tun_xdp_xmit(struct net_device *dev, int n,
>
> rcu_read_lock();
>
> - numqueues = READ_ONCE(tun->numqueues);
> - if (!numqueues) {
> + tfile = rcu_dereference(tun->tfiles[smp_processor_id() %
> + tun->numqueues]);
> + if (!tfile) {
> rcu_read_unlock();
> return -ENXIO; /* Caller will free/return all frames */
> }
>
> - tfile = rcu_dereference(tun->tfiles[smp_processor_id() %
> - numqueues]);
> -
> spin_lock(&tfile->tx_ring.producer_lock);
> for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
> struct xdp_frame *xdp = frames[i];
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists