linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v6 2/8] bpf: reject unhashed sockets in bpf_sk

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]

Message-ID: <20230720211646.34782-1-kuniyu@amazon.com>
Date:   Thu, 20 Jul 2023 14:16:46 -0700
From:   Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>
To:     <lmb@...valent.com>
CC:     <andrii@...nel.org>, <ast@...nel.org>, <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        <daniel@...earbox.net>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
        <dsahern@...nel.org>, <edumazet@...gle.com>, <haoluo@...gle.com>,
        <hemanthmalla@...il.com>, <joe@...ium.io>, <joe@...d.net.nz>,
        <john.fastabend@...il.com>, <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        <kpsingh@...nel.org>, <kuba@...nel.org>, <kuniyu@...zon.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, <mykolal@...com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <pabeni@...hat.com>, <sdf@...gle.com>, <shuah@...nel.org>,
        <song@...nel.org>, <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>, <yhs@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v6 2/8] bpf: reject unhashed sockets in bpf_sk_assign

From: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...valent.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2023 17:30:06 +0200
> The semantics for bpf_sk_assign are as follows:
> 
>     sk = some_lookup_func()
>     bpf_sk_assign(skb, sk)
>     bpf_sk_release(sk)
> 
> That is, the sk is not consumed by bpf_sk_assign. The function
> therefore needs to make sure that sk lives long enough to be
> consumed from __inet_lookup_skb. The path through the stack for a
> TCPv4 packet is roughly:
> 
>   netif_receive_skb_core: takes RCU read lock
>     __netif_receive_skb_core:
>       sch_handle_ingress:
>         tcf_classify:
>           bpf_sk_assign()
>       deliver_ptype_list_skb:
>         deliver_skb:
>           ip_packet_type->func == ip_rcv:
>             ip_rcv_core:
>             ip_rcv_finish_core:
>               dst_input:
>                 ip_local_deliver:
>                   ip_local_deliver_finish:
>                     ip_protocol_deliver_rcu:
>                       tcp_v4_rcv:
>                         __inet_lookup_skb:
>                           skb_steal_sock
> 
> The existing helper takes advantage of the fact that everything
> happens in the same RCU critical section: for sockets with
> SOCK_RCU_FREE set bpf_sk_assign never takes a reference.
> skb_steal_sock then checks SOCK_RCU_FREE again and does sock_put
> if necessary.
> 
> This approach assumes that SOCK_RCU_FREE is never set on a sk
> between bpf_sk_assign and skb_steal_sock, but this invariant is
> violated by unhashed UDP sockets. A new UDP socket is created
> in TCP_CLOSE state but without SOCK_RCU_FREE set. That flag is only
> added in udp_lib_get_port() which happens when a socket is bound.
> 
> When bpf_sk_assign was added it wasn't possible to access unhashed
> UDP sockets from BPF, so this wasn't a problem. This changed
> in commit 0c48eefae712 ("sock_map: Lift socket state restriction
> for datagram sockets"), but the helper wasn't adjusted accordingly.
> The following sequence of events will therefore lead to a refcount
> leak:
> 
> 1. Add socket(AF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM) to a sockmap.
> 2. Pull socket out of sockmap and bpf_sk_assign it. Since
>    SOCK_RCU_FREE is not set we increment the refcount.
> 3. bind() or connect() the socket, setting SOCK_RCU_FREE.
> 4. skb_steal_sock will now set refcounted = false due to
>    SOCK_RCU_FREE.
> 5. tcp_v4_rcv() skips sock_put().
> 
> Fix the problem by rejecting unhashed sockets in bpf_sk_assign().
> This matches the behaviour of __inet_lookup_skb which is ultimately
> the goal of bpf_sk_assign().
> 
> Fixes: cf7fbe660f2d ("bpf: Add socket assign support")

Should this be 0c48eefae712 then ?


> Cc: Joe Stringer <joe@...ium.io>
> Signed-off-by: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...valent.com>

The change itself looks good.

Reviewed-by: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>

Thanks!


> ---
>  net/core/filter.c | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c
> index 797e8f039696..b5b51ef48c5f 100644
> --- a/net/core/filter.c
> +++ b/net/core/filter.c
> @@ -7353,6 +7353,8 @@ BPF_CALL_3(bpf_sk_assign, struct sk_buff *, skb, struct sock *, sk, u64, flags)
>  		return -ENETUNREACH;
>  	if (unlikely(sk_fullsock(sk) && sk->sk_reuseport))
>  		return -ESOCKTNOSUPPORT;
> +	if (sk_unhashed(sk))
> +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>  	if (sk_is_refcounted(sk) &&
>  	    unlikely(!refcount_inc_not_zero(&sk->sk_refcnt)))
>  		return -ENOENT;
> 
> -- 
> 2.41.0