linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v15 06/22] ovpn: introduce the ovpn

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: <Z1sNEgQLMzZua3mS@hog>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 17:19:30 +0100
From: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>
To: Antonio Quartulli <antonio@...nvpn.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Donald Hunter <donald.hunter@...il.com>,
	Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, ryazanov.s.a@...il.com,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
	Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, Xiao Liang <shaw.leon@...il.com>,
	willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v15 06/22] ovpn: introduce the ovpn_socket object

2024-12-11, 22:15:10 +0100, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
> +static struct ovpn_socket *ovpn_socket_get(struct socket *sock)
> +{
> +	struct ovpn_socket *ovpn_sock;
> +
> +	rcu_read_lock();
> +	ovpn_sock = rcu_dereference_sk_user_data(sock->sk);
> +	if (WARN_ON(!ovpn_socket_hold(ovpn_sock)))

Could we hit this situation when we're removing the last peer (so
detaching its socket) just as we're adding a new one? ovpn_socket_new
finds the socket already attached and goes through the EALREADY path,
but the refcount has already dropped to 0?

Then we'd also return NULL from ovpn_socket_new [1], which I don't
think is handled well by the caller (at least the netdev_dbg call at
the end of ovpn_nl_peer_modify, maybe other spots too).

(I guess it's not an issue you would see with the existing userspace
if it's single-threaded)

[...]
> +struct ovpn_socket *ovpn_socket_new(struct socket *sock, struct ovpn_peer *peer)
> +{
> +	struct ovpn_socket *ovpn_sock;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	ret = ovpn_socket_attach(sock, peer);
> +	if (ret < 0 && ret != -EALREADY)
> +		return ERR_PTR(ret);
> +
> +	/* if this socket is already owned by this interface, just increase the
> +	 * refcounter and use it as expected.
> +	 *
> +	 * Since UDP sockets can be used to talk to multiple remote endpoints,
> +	 * openvpn normally instantiates only one socket and shares it among all
> +	 * its peers. For this reason, when we find out that a socket is already
> +	 * used for some other peer in *this* instance, we can happily increase
> +	 * its refcounter and use it normally.
> +	 */
> +	if (ret == -EALREADY) {
> +		/* caller is expected to increase the sock refcounter before
> +		 * passing it to this function. For this reason we drop it if
> +		 * not needed, like when this socket is already owned.
> +		 */
> +		ovpn_sock = ovpn_socket_get(sock);
> +		sockfd_put(sock);

[1] so we would need to add

    if (!ovpn_sock)
        return -EAGAIN;

> +		return ovpn_sock;
> +	}
> +

[...]
> +int ovpn_udp_socket_attach(struct socket *sock, struct ovpn_priv *ovpn)
> +{
> +	struct ovpn_socket *old_data;
> +	int ret = 0;
> +
> +	/* make sure no pre-existing encapsulation handler exists */
> +	rcu_read_lock();
> +	old_data = rcu_dereference_sk_user_data(sock->sk);
> +	if (!old_data) {
> +		/* socket is currently unused - we can take it */
> +		rcu_read_unlock();
> +		return 0;
> +	}
> +
> +	/* socket is in use. We need to understand if it's owned by this ovpn
> +	 * instance or by something else.
> +	 * In the former case, we can increase the refcounter and happily
> +	 * use it, because the same UDP socket is expected to be shared among
> +	 * different peers.
> +	 *
> +	 * Unlikely TCP, a single UDP socket can be used to talk to many remote

(since I'm commenting on this patch:)

s/Unlikely/Unlike/

[I have some more nits/typos here and there but I worry the
maintainers will get "slightly" annoyed if I make you repost 22
patches once again :) -- if that's all I find in the next few days,
everyone might be happier if I stash them and we get them fixed after
merging?]

-- 
Sabrina