netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: take care of cloned skbs in tcp_try

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:	Wed, 02 May 2012 18:12:48 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
Cc:	Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>,
	Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>,
	Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
	Michael Chan <mchan@...adcom.com>,
	Matt Carlson <mcarlson@...adcom.com>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>,
	Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>,
	Maciej Żenczykowski <maze@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: take care of cloned skbs in
 tcp_try_coalesce()

On Wed, 2012-05-02 at 08:52 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On 05/02/2012 01:13 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> >
> > Before stealing fragments or skb head, we must make sure skb is not
> > cloned.
> >
> > If skb is cloned, we must take references on pages instead.
> >
> > Bug happened using tcpdump (if not using mmap())
> >
> > Reported-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> > ---
> >  net/ipv4/tcp_input.c |   17 ++++++++++++++---
> >  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
> > index 96a631d..7686d7f 100644
> > --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
> > +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
> > @@ -4467,7 +4467,7 @@ static bool tcp_try_coalesce(struct sock *sk,
> >  			     struct sk_buff *from,
> >  			     bool *fragstolen)
> >  {
> > -	int delta, len = from->len;
> > +	int i, delta, len = from->len;
> >  
> >  	*fragstolen = false;
> >  	if (tcp_hdr(from)->fin)
> > @@ -4497,7 +4497,13 @@ copyfrags:
> >  		       skb_shinfo(from)->frags,
> >  		       skb_shinfo(from)->nr_frags * sizeof(skb_frag_t));
> >  		skb_shinfo(to)->nr_frags += skb_shinfo(from)->nr_frags;
> > -		skb_shinfo(from)->nr_frags = 0;
> > +
> > +		if (skb_cloned(from))
> > +			for (i = 0; i < skb_shinfo(from)->nr_frags; i++)
> > +				skb_frag_ref(from, i);
> > +		else
> > +			skb_shinfo(from)->nr_frags = 0;
> > +
> >  		to->truesize += delta;
> >  		atomic_add(delta, &sk->sk_rmem_alloc);
> >  		sk_mem_charge(sk, delta);
> I am fairly certain the bug I saw is only masked over by this change. 
> The underlying problem is that we shouldn't be messing with nr_frags on
> the from or the to if either one is clone.  You now have a check in
> place for the from, but what about the to?  This function should
> probably be calling a pskb_expand_head on the to skb in order to
> guarantee that the skb->head isn't shared.  Otherwise this is going to
> cause other issues for any functions that are sharing these skbs that
> just walk through frags without checking skb->len or skb->data_len first. 

Its safe to increase to->len and increase nr_frags in this context,
because we hold a reference to dataref : It cannot disappear under us.

clones will still have their skb->len at skb_clone() time and wont care
we expanded the frags.

> 
> > @@ -4515,7 +4521,12 @@ copyfrags:
> >  		offset = from->data - (unsigned char *)page_address(page);
> >  		skb_fill_page_desc(to, skb_shinfo(to)->nr_frags,
> >  				   page, offset, skb_headlen(from));
> > -		*fragstolen = true;
> > +
> > +		if (skb_cloned(from))
> > +			get_page(page);
> > +		else
> > +			*fragstolen = true;
> > +
> >  		delta = len; /* we dont know real truesize... */
> >  		goto copyfrags;
> >  	}
> >
> >
> I don't see where we are now addressing the put_page call to release the
> page afterwards.  By calling get_page you are incrementing the page
> count by one, but where are you decrementing dataref in the shared
> info?  Without that we are looking at a memory leak because __kfree_skb
> will decrement the dataref but it will never reach 0 so it will never
> call put_page on the head frag.

really the dataref was already incremented at skb_clone() time

It will be properly decremented since we call __kfree_skb()

Only the last decrement will perform the put_page()

Think about splice() is doing, its the same get_page() game.



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html