linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next] selftests/bpf: fix potential premature unload in bpf

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: Tue, 9 Jan 2024 11:40:38 -0800
From: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>
To: Artem Savkov <asavkov@...hat.com>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
 Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
 bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, jolsa@...nel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] selftests/bpf: fix potential premature unload in
 bpf_testmod


On 1/9/24 8:43 AM, Artem Savkov wrote:
> It is possible for bpf_kfunc_call_test_release() to be called from
> bpf_map_free_deferred() when bpf_testmod is already unloaded and
> perf_test_stuct.cnt which it tries to decrease is no longer in memory.
> This patch tries to fix the issue by waiting for all references to be
> dropped in bpf_testmod_exit().
>
> The issue can be triggered by running 'test_progs -t map_kptr' in 6.5,
> but is obscured in 6.6 by d119357d07435 ("rcu-tasks: Treat only
> synchronous grace periods urgently").
>
> Fixes: 65eb006d85a2a ("bpf: Move kernel test kfuncs to bpf_testmod")

Please add your Signed-off-by tag.

I think the root cause is that bpf_kfunc_call_test_acquire() kfunc
is defined in bpf_testmod and the kfunc returns some data in bpf_testmod.
But the release function bpf_kfunc_call_test_release() is in the kernel.
The release func tries to access some data in bpf_testmod which might
have been unloaded. The prog_test_ref_kfunc is defined in the kernel, so
no bpf_testmod btf reference is hold so bpf_testmod can be unloaded before
bpf_kfunc_call_test_release().
As you mentioned, we won't have this issue if bpf_kfunc_call_test_acquire()
is also in the kernel.

I think putting bpf_kfunc_call_test_acquire() in bpf_testmod and
bpf_kfunc_call_test_release() in kernel is not a good idea and confusing.
But since this is only for tests, I guess we can live with that. With that,

Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>

> ---
>   tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c | 4 ++++
>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
> index 91907b321f913..63f0dbd016703 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
> @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
>   /* Copyright (c) 2020 Facebook */
>   #include <linux/btf.h>
>   #include <linux/btf_ids.h>
> +#include <linux/delay.h>
>   #include <linux/error-injection.h>
>   #include <linux/init.h>
>   #include <linux/module.h>
> @@ -544,6 +545,9 @@ static int bpf_testmod_init(void)
>   
>   static void bpf_testmod_exit(void)
>   {
> +	while (refcount_read(&prog_test_struct.cnt) > 1)
> +		msleep(20);
> +
>   	return sysfs_remove_bin_file(kernel_kobj, &bin_attr_bpf_testmod_file);
>   }
>