linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] drivers: net: prevent tun_get

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: <3659ea35-8d03-aae7-53c0-09181bb1b69d@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 27 Jul 2023 13:13:10 +0200
From:   Jesper Dangaard Brouer <jbrouer@...hat.com>
To:     Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc:     brouer@...hat.com, Jesper Dangaard Brouer <jbrouer@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Kanner <andrew.kanner@...il.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
        edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        syzbot+f817490f5bd20541b90a@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] drivers: net: prevent tun_get_user() to exceed xdp
 size limits



On 27/07/2023 11.30, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On Thu, 2023-07-27 at 14:07 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 8:27 AM David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 7/26/23 1:37 PM, David Ahern wrote:
>>>> On 7/26/23 3:02 AM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
>>>>> Cc. John and Ahern
>>>>>
>>>>> On 26/07/2023 04.09, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 11:54 PM Andrew Kanner
>>>>>> <andrew.kanner@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Syzkaller reported the following issue:
>>>>>>> =======================================
>>>>>>> Too BIG xdp->frame_sz = 131072
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this a contiguous physical memory allocation?
>>>>>
>>>>> 131072 bytes equal order 5 page.
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking at tun.c code I cannot find a code path that could create
>>>>> order-5 skb->data, but only SKB with order-0 fragments.  But I guess it
>>>>> is the netif_receive_generic_xdp() what will realloc to make this linear
>>>>> (via skb_linearize())
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> get_tun_user is passed an iov_iter with a single segment of 65007
>>>> total_len. The alloc_skb path is hit with an align size of only 64. That
>>>> is insufficient for XDP so the netif_receive_generic_xdp hits the
>>>> pskb_expand_head path. Something is off in the math in
>>>> netif_receive_generic_xdp resulting in the skb markers being off. That
>>>> causes bpf_prog_run_generic_xdp to compute the wrong frame_sz.
>>>
>>>
>>> BTW, it is pskb_expand_head that turns it from a 64kB to a 128 kB
>>> allocation. But the 128kB part is not relevant to the "bug" here really.
>>>

True, it is another "bug"/unexpected-behavior that SKB gets reallocated
to be 128KiB. We should likely solve this in another patch.

>>> The warn on getting tripped in bpf_xdp_adjust_tail is because xdp
>>> generic path is skb based and can have a frame_sz > 4kB. That's what the
>>> splat is about.

Agree, that the warn condition should be changed, even removed.
It is interesting that this warn caught this unexpected-behavior of
expanding to 128KiB.

>>
>> Other possibility:
>>
>> tun_can_build_skb() doesn't count XDP_PACKET_HEADROOM this may end up
>> with producing a frame_sz which is greater than PAGE_SIZE as well in
>> tun_build_skb().

True, and the way I read the tun_build_skb() code, via 
skb_page_frag_refill(),
it can produce an SKB with data size (buflen) upto order-3 = 32KiB 
(SKB_FRAG_PAGE_ORDER).

Thus, the existing check in tun_can_build_skb() for PAGE_SIZE can/should 
be relaxed?
(Please correct me as I don't fully understand tun_get_user() code)

>>
>> And rethink this patch, it looks wrong since it basically drops all
>> packets whose buflen is greater than PAGE_SIZE since it can't fall
>> back to tun_alloc_skb().
>>

I agree, this is why I reacted, as this version of the patch could
potentially cause issues and packet drops.

>>>
>>> Perhaps the solution is to remove the WARN_ON.
>>
>> Yes, that is what I'm asking if this warning still makes sense in V1.
> 
> I understand the consensus is solving the issue by changing/removing
> the WARN_ON() in XDP. I think it makes sense, I guess the same warn can
> be reached via packet socket xmit on veth or similar topology.
> 

Yes, we can completely remove this check.  The original intend was to
catch cases where XDP drivers have not been updated to use xdp.frame_sz,
but that is not longer a concern (since xdp_init_buff).

It was added (by me) in commit:
  - c8741e2bfe87 ("xdp: Allow bpf_xdp_adjust_tail() to grow packet size")
    - v5.8-rc1
  - as part of merge 5cc5924d8315

I'm sure it is safe to remove since commit:
  - 43b5169d8355 ("net, xdp: Introduce xdp_init_buff utility routine")
    - v5.12-rc1

where we introduced xdp_init_buff() helper, which all XDP driver use today.
Question is what "Fixes:" tag should the patch have?

To Andrew, will you
  (1) send a new patch that removes this check instead?
  (2) have cycles to investigate why the unexpected-behavior of
expanding to 128KiB happens?

--Jesper