linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] net: sched: fix memory leak in tcindex_set

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:   Sat,  5 Nov 2022 22:11:56 +0800
From:   Hawkins Jiawei <yin31149@...il.com>
To:     kuba@...nel.org
Cc:     18801353760@....com, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
        jhs@...atatu.com, jiri@...nulli.us, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
        syzbot+232ebdbd36706c965ebf@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
        syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com,
        yin31149@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: sched: fix memory leak in tcindex_set_parms

On Fri, 4 Nov 2022 at 10:23, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri,  4 Nov 2022 00:07:00 +0800 Hawkins Jiawei wrote:
> > > Can't you localize all the changes to this if block?
> > >
> > > Maybe add a function called tcindex_filter_result_reinit()
> > > which will act more appropriately? 
> >
> > I think we shouldn't put the tcf_exts_destroy(&old_e)
> > into this if block, or other RCU readers may derefer the
> > freed memory (Please correct me If I am wrong).
> >
> > So I put the tcf_exts_destroy(&old_e) near the tcindex
> > destroy work, after the RCU updateing.
>
> I'm not sure what this code is trying to do, to be honest.
> Your concern that there may be a concurrent reader is valid,
> but then again tcindex_filter_result_init() just wipes the
> entire structure with a memset() so concurrent readers are
> already likely broken?
>
> Maybe tcindex_filter_result_init() dates back to times when
> exts were a list (see commit 22dc13c837c) and calling
> tcf_exts_init() wasn't that different than cleaning it up?
> In other words this code is trying to destroy old_r, not
> reinitialize it?
Yes, I also think this code is just trying to destroy the old_r.

In my opinion, the context here is a bit like, this filter's some
properties has been changed, so kernel should drop its old filter
result and update a new one.

Before kernel finishes RCU updating, concurrent readers should
see an empty result(or a valid old result), cleaned by
tcindex_filter_result_init().

This won't trigger the memory leak before commit b9a24bb76bf6
("net_sched: properly handle failure case of tcf_exts_init()"),
I think. Because the new filter result still uses the old_r->exts.

Yet after this commit, kernel allocates the new struct tcf_exts for
new filter result in tcindex_alloc_perfect_hash(), which triggers
the memory leak if kernel cleans the old_r without destroying its
newly allocted struct tcf_exts.

As for the patch, I think we'd better free this struct tcf_exts
after RCU updating, to make sure that concurrent readers can only
see an empty result or a valid old result, before finishing updating
(Please correct me if I am wrong).
>
> > > 
> > > >               err = tcindex_filter_result_init(old_r, cp, net);