netdev - Re: net: suspicious RCU usage in nf

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:   Fri, 27 Jan 2017 17:31:30 -0800
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
        netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
        syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: net: suspicious RCU usage in nf_hook

On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 17:00 -0800, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> > Oh well, I forgot to submit the official patch I think, Jan 9th.
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/syzkaller/BhyN5OFd7sQ
> >
> 
> Hmm, but why only fragments need skb_orphan()? It seems like
> any kfree_skb() inside a nf hook needs to have a preceding
> skb_orphan().


> 
> Also, I am not convinced it is similar to commit 8282f27449bf15548
> which is on RX path.

Well, we clearly see IPv6 reassembly being part of the equation in both
cases.

I was replying to first part of the splat [1], which was already
diagnosed and had a non official patch.

use after free is also a bug, regardless of jump label being used or
not.

I still do not really understand this nf_hook issue, I thought we were
disabling BH in netfilter.

So the in_interrupt() check in net_disable_timestamp() should trigger,
this was the intent of netstamp_needed_deferred existence.

Not sure if we can test for rcu_read_lock() as well.

[1]
 sk_destruct+0x47/0x80 net/core/sock.c:1460
 __sk_free+0x57/0x230 net/core/sock.c:1468
 sock_wfree+0xae/0x120 net/core/sock.c:1645
 skb_release_head_state+0xfc/0x200 net/core/skbuff.c:655
 skb_release_all+0x15/0x60 net/core/skbuff.c:668
 __kfree_skb+0x15/0x20 net/core/skbuff.c:684
 kfree_skb+0x16e/0x4c0 net/core/skbuff.c:705
 inet_frag_destroy+0x121/0x290 net/ipv4/inet_fragment.c:304
 inet_frag_put include/net/inet_frag.h:133 [inline]
 nf_ct_frag6_gather+0x1106/0x3840
net/ipv6/netfilter/nf_conntrack_reasm.c:617
 ipv6_defrag+0x1be/0x2b0 net/ipv6/netfilter/nf_defrag_ipv6_hooks.c:68
 nf_hook_entry_hookfn include/linux/netfilter.h:102 [inline]
 nf_hook_slow+0xc3/0x290 net/netfilter/core.c:310
 nf_hook include/linux/netfilter.h:212 [inline]
 __ip6_local_out+0x489/0x840 net/ipv6/output_core.c:160
 ip6_local_out+0x2d/0x170 net/ipv6/output_core.c:170