linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tcp: Do not reset the icsk_ca_initialized in tcp_init

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:   Thu, 1 Jul 2021 02:25:27 +0800
From:   Phi Nguyen <phind.uet@...il.com>
To:     Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, kpsingh@...nel.org,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        syzbot+f1e24a0594d4e3a895d3@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
        Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: Do not reset the icsk_ca_initialized in
 tcp_init_transfer.

On 6/29/2021 11:59 PM, Neal Cardwell wrote:
>    On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 8:58 AM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
>  From my perspective, the bug was introduced when that 8919a9b31eb4
> commit introduced icsk_ca_initialized and set icsk_ca_initialized to 0
> in tcp_init_transfer(), missing the possibility that a process could
> call setsockopt(TCP_CONGESTION)  in state TCP_SYN_SENT (i.e. after the
> connect() or TFO open sendmsg()), which would call
> tcp_init_congestion_control(). The 8919a9b31eb4 commit did not intend
> to reset any initialization that the user had already explicitly made;
> it just missed the possibility of that particular sequence (which
> syzkaller managed to find!).
> 
>> Although I am not sure what happens at accept() time when the listener
>> socket is cloned.
> 
> It seems that for listener sockets, they cannot initialize their CC
> module state, because there is no way for them to reach
> tcp_init_congestion_control(), since:
> 
> (a) tcp_set_congestion_control() -> tcp_reinit_congestion_control()
> will not call tcp_init_congestion_control() on a socket in CLOSE or
> LISTEN
> 
> (b) tcp_init_transfer() -> tcp_init_congestion_control() can only
> happen for established sockets and successful TFO SYN_RECV sockets
Is this what was mentioned in this commit ce69e563b325(tcp: make sure 
listeners don't initialize congestion-control state)

> --
> [PATCH] tcp: fix tcp_init_transfer() to not reset icsk_ca_initialized
> 
> This commit fixes a bug (found by syzkaller) that could cause spurious
> double-initializations for congestion control modules, which could cause memory
> leaks orother problems for congestion control modules (like CDG) that allocate
> memory in their init functions.
> 
> The buggy scenario constructed by syzkaller was something like:
> 
> (1) create a TCP socket
> (2) initiate a TFO connect via sendto()
> (3) while socket is in TCP_SYN_SENT, call setsockopt(TCP_CONGESTION),
>      which calls:
>         tcp_set_congestion_control() ->
>           tcp_reinit_congestion_control() ->
>             tcp_init_congestion_control()
> (4) receive ACK, connection is established, call tcp_init_transfer(),
>      set icsk_ca_initialized=0 (without first calling cc->release()),
>      call tcp_init_congestion_control() again.
> 
> Note that in this sequence tcp_init_congestion_control() is called twice
> without a cc->release() call in between. Thus, for CC modules that allocate
> memory in their init() function, e.g, CDG, a memory leak may occur. The
> syzkaller tool managed to find a reproducer that triggered such a leak in CDG.
> 
> The bug was introduced when that 8919a9b31eb4 commit introduced
> icsk_ca_initialized and set icsk_ca_initialized to 0 in tcp_init_transfer(),
> missing the possibility for a sequence like the one above, where a process
> could call setsockopt(TCP_CONGESTION) in state TCP_SYN_SENT (i.e. after the
> connect() or TFO open sendmsg()), which would call
> tcp_init_congestion_control(). The 8919a9b31eb4 commit did not intend to reset
> any initialization that the user had already explicitly made; it just missed
> the possibility of that particular sequence (which syzkaller managed to find).

Could I use your commit message when I resubmit patch?

Thank you.