linux-kernel - Re: general protection fault in tls_sk_proto

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]

Message-ID: <5d684f46b5c51_6192b27353185bcf7@john-XPS-13-9370.notmuch>
Date:   Thu, 29 Aug 2019 15:18:46 -0700
From:   John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Cc:     Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>,
        syzbot <syzbot+7a6ee4d0078eac6bf782@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        aviadye@...lanox.com, borisp@...lanox.com, daniel@...earbox.net,
        davejwatson@...com, davem@...emloft.net,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: general protection fault in tls_sk_proto_close (2)

Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 11:48:32 -0700, John Fastabend wrote:
> > Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 11:52:00 +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:  
> > > > Alternatively work is done if sock is closed again. Anyway ctx is reset
> > > > under sock's callback lock in write mode.
> > > > 
> > > > --- a/net/tls/tls_main.c
> > > > +++ b/net/tls/tls_main.c
> > > > @@ -295,6 +295,8 @@ static void tls_sk_proto_close(struct so
> > > >  	long timeo = sock_sndtimeo(sk, 0);
> > > >  	bool free_ctx;
> > > >  
> > > > +	if (!ctx)
> > > > +		return;
> > > >  	if (ctx->tx_conf == TLS_SW)
> > > >  		tls_sw_cancel_work_tx(ctx);  
> > > 
> > > That's no bueno, the real socket's close will never get called.  
> > 
> > Seems when we refactored BPF side we dropped the check for ULP on one
> > path so I'll add that back now. It would be nice and seems we are
> > getting closer now that tls side is a bit more dynamic if the ordering
> > didn't matter.
> 
> We'd probably need some more generic way of communicating the changes
> in sk_proto stack, e.g. by moving the update into one of sk_proto
> callbacks? but yes.
> 
> > diff --git a/net/core/sock_map.c b/net/core/sock_map.c
> > index 1330a7442e5b..30d11558740e 100644
> > --- a/net/core/sock_map.c
> > +++ b/net/core/sock_map.c
> > @@ -666,6 +666,8 @@ static int sock_hash_update_common(struct bpf_map *map, void *key,
> >         WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held());
> >         if (unlikely(flags > BPF_EXIST))
> >                 return -EINVAL;
> > +       if (unlikely(icsk->icsk_ulp_data))
> > +               return -EINVAL;
> > 
> >         link = sk_psock_init_link();
> >         if (!link)
> 
> Thanks! That looks good, if you feel like submitting officially feel
> free to add my Reviewed-by!

I'll send it out this evening after running the selftests.

.John