netdev - Re: [PATCH] can: Fix kernel panic at security_sock_rcv

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: <1484415035.13165.57.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
Date:   Sat, 14 Jan 2017 09:30:35 -0800
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:     Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
Cc:     Liu Shuo <shuo.a.liu@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com, shuox.liu@...il.com,
        Zhang Yanmin <yanmin.zhang@...el.com>,
        "He, Bo" <bo.he@...el.com>, Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "open list:CAN NETWORK LAYER" <linux-can@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:NETWORKING [GENERAL]" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] can: Fix kernel panic at security_sock_rcv_skb

On Sat, 2017-01-14 at 14:53 +0100, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> Hello Eric,
> 
> On 01/14/2017 04:43 AM, Liu Shuo wrote:
> > On Thu 12.Jan'17 at 17:33:38 +0100, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> >> On 01/12/2017 02:01 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> 
> >>> The main problem seems that the sockets themselves are not RCU
> >>> protected.
> >>>
> >>> If CAN uses RCU for delivery, then sockets should be freed only after
> >>> one RCU grace period.
> >>>
> >>> On recent kernels, following patch could help :
> >>>
> >>
> >> Thanks Eric!
> >>
> >> @Liu ShuoX: Can you check if Eric's suggestion fixes the issue in your
> >> setup?
> > Sorry for late reply. I was OOO yesterday.
> > With Eric's hint, i just found his patch that "net: add SOCK_RCU_FREE
> > socket flag" in the latest kernel. With backporting this one plus Eric's
> > following patch, it fixs my failure.
> 
> what would be the best approach to fix this issue - even in stable kernels?
> 
> E.g. would this change be ok for a stable as a quick fix?
> 
> diff --git a/net/can/af_can.c b/net/can/af_can.c
> index 1108079d934f..6b974c2b66ef 100644
> --- a/net/can/af_can.c
> +++ b/net/can/af_can.c
> @@ -112,6 +112,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(can_ioctl);
> 
>   static void can_sock_destruct(struct sock *sk)
>   {
> +       synchronize_rcu();
>          skb_queue_purge(&sk->sk_receive_queue);
>   }

Adding a synchronize_rcu() at socket close time might have side effects,
if say an application had 1000 such sockets and dies.

This might add 20 seconds of exit time and have serious implications.

I will submit the second patch : It is working for all linux versions.

> 
> And once this arrived in the mainline tree your suggested patch could be 
> applied?
> 
> In any case we should not forget to give Reported-by credits to Liu.

Sure