netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] tc: fix tc actions in case of shared skb

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <55A415DE.8020806@plumgrid.com>
Date:	Mon, 13 Jul 2015 12:47:42 -0700
From:	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	jhs@...atatu.com, daniel@...earbox.net, jiri@...nulli.us,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] tc: fix tc actions in case of shared skb

On 7/11/15 9:29 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 17:10:11 -0700
>
>> TC actions need to check for very unlikely event skb->users != 1,
>> otherwise subsequent pskb_may_pull/pskb_expand_head will crash.
>> When skb_shared() just drop the packet, since in the middle of actions
>> it's too late to call skb_share_check(), since classifiers/actions assume
>> the same skb pointer.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
>
> I think whatever creates this skb->users != 1 situation should be fixed,
> they should clone the packet.

In all normal cases skb->users == 1, but pktgen is using trick:
atomic_add(burst, &skb->users);
so when testing something like:
tc filter add dev $dev root pref 10 u32 match u32 0 0 flowid 1:2 \
   action vlan push id 2 action drop

it will crash:
[   31.999519] kernel BUG at ../net/core/skbuff.c:1130!
[   31.999519] invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP
[   31.999519] Modules linked in: act_gact act_vlan cls_u32 sch_ingress 
veth pktgen
[   31.999519] CPU: 0 PID: 339 Comm: kpktgend_0 Not tainted 4.1.0+ #730
[   31.999519] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), [ 
   31.999519] Call Trace:
[   31.999519]  [<ffffffff8160eea7>] skb_vlan_push+0x1d7/0x200
[   31.999519]  [<ffffffffa0017108>] tcf_vlan+0x108/0x110 [act_vlan]
[   31.999519]  [<ffffffff81650d26>] tcf_action_exec+0x46/0x80
[   31.999519]  [<ffffffffa001f4fe>] u32_classify+0x30e/0x740 [cls_u32]
[   31.999519]  [<ffffffff810bcc6f>] ? __lock_acquire+0xbcf/0x1e80
[   31.999519]  [<ffffffff810bcc6f>] ? __lock_acquire+0xbcf/0x1e80
[   31.999519]  [<ffffffff8161f392>] ? __netif_receive_skb_core+0x1b2/0xce0
[   31.999519]  [<ffffffff8164c0c3>] tc_classify_compat+0xa3/0xb0
[   31.999519]  [<ffffffff8164ca03>] tc_classify+0x33/0x90
[   31.999519]  [<ffffffff8161f674>] __netif_receive_skb_core+0x494/0xce0
[   31.999519]  [<ffffffff8161f274>] ? __netif_receive_skb_core+0x94/0xce0
[   31.999519]  [<ffffffff810bf10d>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0xad/0x1d0
[   31.999519]  [<ffffffff8161fee1>] __netif_receive_skb+0x21/0x70
[   31.999519]  [<ffffffff81620b43>] netif_receive_skb_internal+0x23/0x1c0
[   31.999519]  [<ffffffff816219a9>] netif_receive_skb_sk+0x49/0x1e0
[   31.999519]  [<ffffffffa0006e8d>] pktgen_thread_worker+0x111d/0x1fa0 
[pktgen]

> In fact, it would really help enormously if you could explain in detail
> how this situation can actually arise.  Especially since I do not consider
> it acceptable to drop the packet in this situation.

It's not pretty to drop, but it's better than crash.
I don't think we can get rid of 'skb->users += burst' trick, since
that's where all performance comes from (for both TX and RX testing).

So the only cheap way I see to avoid crash is to do this
if (unlikely(skb_shared(skb)))
check in actions that call pskb_expand_head.

In all normal scenarios it won't be triggered and pktgen tests
won't be crashing.
Yes. pktgen numbers will be a bit meaningless, since act_vlan will be
dropping instead of adding vlan, so users cannot make any performance
conclusions, but still better than crash.

> the rules specified here:
> Documentation/networking/tc-actions-env-rules.txt
> insufficient?

Jamal,
that doc definitely needs updating. :)
It says:
"If you munge any packet thou shalt call pskb_expand_head in the case
someone else is referencing the skb. After that you "own" the skb."
that's incorrect. If somebody 'referencing' skb via skb->users > 1
it's too late to call pskb_expand_head. As you can see in the
crash trace above.

--
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