linux-kernel - Re: [syzbot] [net?] WARNING: refcount bug in inet_twsk

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: <20240812150338.GA25936@breakpoint.cc>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 17:03:38 +0200
From: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
Cc: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>, Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>,
	davem@...emloft.net, dsahern@...nel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
	kuba@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
	syzbot+8ea26396ff85d23a8929@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
	syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [syzbot] [net?] WARNING: refcount bug in inet_twsk_kill

Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com> wrote:
> > I don't see how this helps, we need to wait until 'stolen' twsk
> > has gone through inet_twsk_kill() and decremented tw_refcount.
> > Obviously It would be a bit simpler if we had a reliable reproducer :-)
> 
> Allow me to say something irrelevant to this bug report.
> 
> Do you think that Kuniyuki's patch can solve the race between two
> 'killers' calling inet_twsk_deschedule_put()->inet_twsk_kill()
> concurrently at two cores, say, inet_twsk_purge() and tcp_abort()?

I don't think its possible, tcp_abort() calls inet_twsk_deschedule_put,
which does:

        if (timer_shutdown_sync(&tw->tw_timer))
                inet_twsk_kill(tw);

So I don't see how two concurrent callers, working on same tw address,
would both be able to shut down the timer.

One will shut it down and calls inet_twsk_kill(), other will wait until
the callback has completed, but it doesn't call inet_twsk_kill().

> It at least does help avoid decrementing tw_refcount twice in the
> above case if I understand correctly.

I don't think the refcount is decremented twice.

Problem is one thread is already at the 'final' decrement of
 WARN_ON_ONCE(!refcount_dec_and_test(&net->ipv4.tcp_death_row.tw_refcount));

in tcp_sk_exit_batch(), while other thread has not yet called
refcount_dec() on it (inet_twsk_kill still executing).

So we get two splats, refcount_dec_and_test() returns 1 not expected 0
and refcount_dec() coming right afterwards from other task observes the
transition to 0, while it should have dropped down to 1.