Message-ID: <CANP3RGdrRDERiPFVQ1nZYVtopErjqOQ72qQ_+ijGQiL7bTtcLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 10:51:34 -0700
From: Maciej Żenczykowski <maze@...gle.com>
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: Lena Wang (王娜) <Lena.Wang@...iatek.com>, 
	"steffen.klassert@...unet.com" <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>, "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>, 
	Shiming Cheng (成诗明) <Shiming.Cheng@...iatek.com>, 
	"pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>, "edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>, 
	"matthias.bgg@...il.com" <matthias.bgg@...il.com>, "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>, 
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] udp: fix segmentation crash for GRO packet without fraglist

On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 10:16 AM Willem de Bruijn
<willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Maciej Żenczykowski wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 7:14 PM Lena Wang (王娜) <Lena.Wang@...iatek.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 2024-04-15 at 16:53 -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > > >
> > > > External email : Please do not click links or open attachments until
> > > > you have verified the sender or the content.
> > > >  shiming.cheng@ wrote:
> > > > > From: Shiming Cheng <shiming.cheng@...iatek.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > A GRO packet without fraglist is crashed and backtrace is as below:
> > > > >  [ 1100.812205][    C3] CPU: 3 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/3 Tainted:
> > > > > G        W  OE      6.6.17-android15-0-g380371ea9bf1 #1
> > > > >  [ 1100.812317][    C3]  __udp_gso_segment+0x298/0x4d4
> > > > >  [ 1100.812335][    C3]  __skb_gso_segment+0xc4/0x120
> > > > >  [ 1100.812339][    C3]  udp_rcv_segment+0x50/0x134
> > > > >  [ 1100.812344][    C3]  udp_queue_rcv_skb+0x74/0x114
> > > > >  [ 1100.812348][    C3]  udp_unicast_rcv_skb+0x94/0xac
> > > > >  [ 1100.812358][    C3]  udp_rcv+0x20/0x30
> > > > >
> > > > > The reason that the packet loses its fraglist is that in ingress
> > > > bpf
> > > > > it makes a test pull with to make sure it can read packet headers
> > > > > via direct packet access: In bpf_progs/offload.c
> > > > > try_make_writable -> bpf_skb_pull_data -> pskb_may_pull ->
> > > > > __pskb_pull_tail  This operation pull the data in fraglist into
> > > > linear
> > > > > and set the fraglist to null.
> > > >
> > > > What is the right behavior from BPF with regard to SKB_GSO_FRAGLIST
> > > > skbs?
> > > >
> > > > Some, like SCTP, cannot be linearized ever, as the do not have a
> > > > single gso_size.
> > > >
> > > > Should this BPF operation just fail?
> > > >
> > > In most situation for big gso size packet, it indeed fails but BPF
> > > doesn't check the result. It seems the udp GRO packet can't be pulled/
> > > trimed/condensed or else it can't be segmented correctly.
> > >
> > > As the BPF function comments it doesn't matter if the data pull failed
> > > or pull less. It just does a blind best effort pull.
> > >
> > > A patch to modify bpf pull length is upstreamed to Google before and
> > > below are part of Google BPF expert maze's reply:
> > > maze@...gle.com<maze@...gle.com> #5Apr 13, 2024 02:30AM
> > > I *think* if that patch fixes anything, then it's really proving that
> > > there's a bug in the kernel that needs to be fixed instead.
> > > It should be legal to call try_make_writable(skb, X) with *any* value
> > > of X.
> > >
> > > I add maze in loop and we could start more discussion here.
> >
> > Personally, I think bpf_skb_pull_data() should have automatically
> > (ie. in kernel code) reduced how much it pulls so that it would pull
> > headers only,
>
> That would be a helper that parses headers to discover header length.

Does it actually need to?  Presumably the bpf pull function could
notice that it is
a packet flagged as being of type X (UDP GSO FRAGLIST) and reduce the pull
accordingly so that it doesn't pull anything from the non-linear
fraglist portion???

I know only the generic overview of what udp gso is, not any details, so I am
assuming here that there's some sort of guarantee to how these packets
are structured...  But I imagine there must be or we wouldn't be hitting these
issues deeper in the stack?

> Parsing is better left to the BPF program.
>
> > and not packet content.
> > (This is assuming the rest of the code isn't ready to deal with a longer pull,
> > which I think is the case atm.  Pulling too much, and then crashing or forcing
> > the stack to drop packets because of them being malformed seems wrong..)
> >
> > In general it would be nice if there was a way to just say pull all headers...
> > (or possibly all L2/L3/L4 headers)
> > You in general need to pull stuff *before* you've even looked at the packet,
> > so that you can look at the packet,
> > so it's relatively hard/annoying to pull the correct length from bpf
> > code itself.
> >
> > > > > BPF needs to modify a proper length to do pull data. However kernel
> > > > > should also improve the flow to avoid crash from a bpf function
> > > > call.
> > > > > As there is no split flow and app may not decode the merged UDP
> > > > packet,
> > > > > we should drop the packet without fraglist in skb_segment_list
> > > > here.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fixes: 3a1296a38d0c ("net: Support GRO/GSO fraglist chaining.")
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Shiming Cheng <shiming.cheng@...iatek.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Lena Wang <lena.wang@...iatek.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  net/core/skbuff.c | 3 +++
> > > > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/net/core/skbuff.c b/net/core/skbuff.c
> > > > > index b99127712e67..f68f2679b086 100644
> > > > > --- a/net/core/skbuff.c
> > > > > +++ b/net/core/skbuff.c
> > > > > @@ -4504,6 +4504,9 @@ struct sk_buff *skb_segment_list(struct
> > > > sk_buff *skb,
> > > > >  if (err)
> > > > >  goto err_linearize;
> > > > >
> > > > > +if (!list_skb)
> > > > > +goto err_linearize;
> > > > > +
>
> This would catch the case where the entire data frag_list is
> linearized, but not a pskb_may_pull that only pulls in part of the
> list.
>
> Even with BPF being privileged, the kernel should not crash if BPF
> pulls a FRAGLIST GSO skb.
>
> But the check needs to be refined a bit. For a UDP GSO packet, I
> think gso_size is still valid, so if the head_skb length does not
> match gso_size, it has been messed with and should be dropped.
>
> For a GSO_BY_FRAGS skb, there is no single gso_size, and this pull
> may be entirely undetectable as long as frag_list != NULL?
>
>
> > > > >  skb_shinfo(skb)->frag_list = NULL;
> > > >
> > > > In absense of plugging the issue in BPF, dropping here is the best
> > > > we can do indeed, I think.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists