netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 4/5] bridge: vlan: fix possible null ptr derefs on port init and deinit

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <561A5982.4070008@blackwall.org>
Date:	Sun, 11 Oct 2015 14:43:46 +0200
From:	Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>
To:	Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com,
	vyasevich@...il.com, stephen@...workplumber.org,
	bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 4/5] bridge: vlan: fix possible null ptr derefs
 on port init and deinit

On 10/11/2015 02:42 PM, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> On 10/11/2015 02:21 PM, Ido Schimmel wrote:
>> Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 09:16:54PM IDT, razor@...ckwall.org wrote:
>>> From: Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>
>>>
>>> When a new port is being added we need to make vlgrp available after
>>> rhashtable has been initialized and when removing a port we need to
>>> flush the vlans and free the resources after we're sure noone can use
>>> the port, i.e. after it's removed from the port list and synchronize_rcu
>>> is executed.
>>
>> Hi Nikolay,
>>
>> Changing the order of port deinit breaks symmetry with the init
>> sequence. It also introduces a problem for switchdev drivers. Flushing
>> the VLANs clears HW VLAN filters and then, when port is unlinked from
>> bridge and CHANGEUPPER is received, port is configured to direct traffic
>> to CPU (as it's not offloaded anymore). Doing the reverse (like in this
>> patch) renders the port unusable.
>>
>> Regarding the reason for this change, are you afraid that vlgrp will be
>> accessed in bridge's rx handler or xmit function after it's freed? If
>> so, maybe we can access it using RCU primitives? That way, both the rx
>> handler and xmit function (executed under RCU lock) will either have a
>> valid copy or not. Looking at previous iterations of this code, I see
>> that was the case with the 'net_port_vlans' struct.
>>
>> I can start working on a fix if you agree with the proposed solution.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
> 
> Hi,
> Ah, I didn't know about this, I feared that something might rely on the
> particular order of the operations but didn't have a way to test this one in
> particular. Anyway, your proposed solution sounds good to me.
> 
> Thank you,
>  Nik

One thing to be careful about is the creation/destruction of the rhashtable itself
and the order of operations in regard to vlgrp visibility, so it's not only if
vlgrp is visible or not - it should be visible after rhashtable has been initialized
and should be removed before it's freed, the rest is pretty straight-forward.

--
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