linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] nvme-tcp: fix connect failure on receiving partial ICResp PDU

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: <f75c62ce-04a7-4bc0-ae77-8ed80842bf37@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2025 09:28:50 +0100
From: Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
To: Caleb Sander <csander@...estorage.com>
Cc: Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
 Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
 Maurizio Lombardi <mlombard@...hat.com>, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] nvme-tcp: fix connect failure on receiving partial
 ICResp PDU

On 1/27/25 18:38, Caleb Sander wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 26, 2025 at 11:37 PM Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de> wrote:
>>
>> On 1/24/25 19:43, Caleb Sander Mateos wrote:
>>> nvme_tcp_init_connection() attempts to receive an ICResp PDU but only
>>> checks that the return value from recvmsg() is non-negative. If the
>>> sender closes the TCP connection or sends fewer than 128 bytes, this
>>> check will pass even though the full PDU wasn't received.
>>>
>>> Ensure the full ICResp PDU is received by checking that recvmsg()
>>> returns the expected 128 bytes.
>>>
>>> Additionally set the MSG_WAITALL flag for recvmsg(), as a sender could
>>> split the ICResp over multiple TCP frames. Without MSG_WAITALL,
>>> recvmsg() could return prematurely with only part of the PDU.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Caleb Sander Mateos <csander@...estorage.com>
>>> Fixes: 3f2304f8c6d6 ("nvme-tcp: add NVMe over TCP host driver")
>>> ---
>>> v4: keep recvmsg() error return value
>>> v3: fix return value to indicate error
>>> v2: add Fixes tag
>>>
>>>    drivers/nvme/host/tcp.c | 5 ++++-
>>>    1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/nvme/host/tcp.c b/drivers/nvme/host/tcp.c
>>> index e9ff6babc540..56679eb8c0d6 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/nvme/host/tcp.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/nvme/host/tcp.c
>>> @@ -1446,15 +1446,18 @@ static int nvme_tcp_init_connection(struct nvme_tcp_queue *queue)
>>>        iov.iov_len = sizeof(*icresp);
>>>        if (nvme_tcp_queue_tls(queue)) {
>>>                msg.msg_control = cbuf;
>>>                msg.msg_controllen = sizeof(cbuf);
>>>        }
>>> +     msg.msg_flags = MSG_WAITALL;
>>>        ret = kernel_recvmsg(queue->sock, &msg, &iov, 1,
>>>                        iov.iov_len, msg.msg_flags);
>>
>> But won't we have to wait for a TCP timeout now if the sender sends less
>> than 128 bytes? With this patch we always wait for 128 bytes, and
>> possibly wait for TCP timeout if not.
> 
> Yes, if the NVMe/TCP controller sends less than 128 bytes, we need to
> wait for it to send the remainder of the ICResp PDU. That's just how
> the NVMe/TCP protocol works. If we want to protect against
> buggy/malicious controllers that don't send a full ICResp, we need a
> timeout mechanism. That's the purpose of the existing
> `queue->sock->sk->sk_rcvtimeo = 10 * HZ;` in nvme_tcp_alloc_queue().
> Note that recvmsg() timing out was already possible in the original
> code if the controller didn't send anything on the TCP connection
> after accepting it.
> 
Hmm. With checking the code 'rcvtimeo' is only evaluated if MSG_WAITALL
is _not_ set. Makes me wonder why we do set it...
But that's beside the point.

>> Testcase for this would be nice ...
>>
>> And I need to check if secure concatenation is affected here; with
>> secure concatenation we need to peek at the first packet to check
>> if it's an ICRESP or a TLS negotiation.
> 
> Are you saying that with secure concatenation we don't know in advance
> whether the connection is using TLS between the TCP and NVMe/TCP
> protocol layers? Wouldn't the host already need to know that when it
> sent its ICReq PDU?

No, the host doesn't need to know. TLS is enabled by the lower
layers.

But upon further checking, I guess it'll be okay with secure
concatenation.

Nevertheless, I would vastly prefer to have a receive loop here
instead of waiting to receive the full amount as per MSG_WAITALL.
The entire tcp code is using nonblocking calls, so I'd rather
keep it that way and implement a receive loop here.

Cheers,

Hannes
-- 
Dr. Hannes Reinecke                  Kernel Storage Architect
hare@...e.de                                +49 911 74053 688
SUSE Software Solutions GmbH, Frankenstr. 146, 90461 Nürnberg
HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg), GF: I. Totev, A. McDonald, W. Knoblich