[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAG48ez0sXEjePefCthFdhDskCFhgcnrecEn2jFfteaqa2qwDnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2022 03:14:14 +0100
From: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: dev: Detect dev_hold() after netdev_wait_allrefs()
On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 3:09 AM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 5:43 PM Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > I've run into a bug where dev_hold() was being called after
> > netdev_wait_allrefs(). But at that point, the device is already going
> > away, and dev_hold() can't stop that anymore.
> >
> > To make such problems easier to diagnose in the future:
> >
> > - For CONFIG_PCPU_DEV_REFCNT builds: Recheck in free_netdev() whether
> > the net refcount has been elevated. If this is detected, WARN() and
> > leak the object (to prevent worse consequences from a
> > use-after-free).
> > - For builds without CONFIG_PCPU_DEV_REFCNT: Set the refcount to zero.
> > This signals to the generic refcount infrastructure that any attempt
> > to increment the refcount later is a bug.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
> > ---
> > net/core/dev.c | 18 +++++++++++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
> > index 1baab07820f6..f7916c0d226d 100644
> > --- a/net/core/dev.c
> > +++ b/net/core/dev.c
> > @@ -9949,8 +9949,18 @@ void netdev_run_todo(void)
> >
> > netdev_wait_allrefs(dev);
> >
> > + /* Drop the netdev refcount (which should be 1 at this point)
> > + * to zero. If we're using the generic refcount code, this will
> > + * tell it that any dev_hold() after this point is a bug.
> > + */
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PCPU_DEV_REFCNT
> > + this_cpu_dec(*dev->pcpu_refcnt);
> > + BUG_ON(netdev_refcnt_read(dev) != 0);
> > +#else
> > + BUG_ON(!refcount_dec_and_test(&dev->dev_refcnt));
> > +#endif
> > +
> > /* paranoia */
> > - BUG_ON(netdev_refcnt_read(dev) != 1);
> > BUG_ON(!list_empty(&dev->ptype_all));
> > BUG_ON(!list_empty(&dev->ptype_specific));
> > WARN_ON(rcu_access_pointer(dev->ip_ptr));
> > @@ -10293,6 +10303,12 @@ void free_netdev(struct net_device *dev)
> > free_percpu(dev->xdp_bulkq);
> > dev->xdp_bulkq = NULL;
> >
> > + /* Recheck in case someone called dev_hold() between
> > + * netdev_wait_allrefs() and here.
> > + */
>
> At this point, dev->pcpu_refcnt per-cpu data has been freed already
> (CONFIG_PCPU_DEV_REFCNT=y)
>
> So this should probably crash, or at least UAF ?
Oh. Whoops. That's what I get for only testing without CONFIG_PCPU_DEV_REFCNT...
I guess a better place to put the new check would be directly after
checking for "dev->reg_state == NETREG_UNREGISTERING"? Like this?
if (dev->reg_state == NETREG_UNREGISTERING) {
ASSERT_RTNL();
dev->needs_free_netdev = true;
return;
}
/* Recheck in case someone called dev_hold() between
* netdev_wait_allrefs() and here.
*/
if (WARN_ON(netdev_refcnt_read(dev) != 0))
return; /* leak memory, otherwise we might get UAF */
netif_free_tx_queues(dev);
netif_free_rx_queues(dev);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists