netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH] net: ptr_ring: otherwise safe empty checks can overrun array bounds

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: <20180102191329-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 2 Jan 2018 19:17:30 +0200
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     john.fastabend@...il.com, jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com,
        xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, jiri@...nulli.us, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH] net: ptr_ring: otherwise safe empty checks can
 overrun array bounds

On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 07:01:33PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 11:52:19AM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> > From: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
> > Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 19:50:25 -0800
> > 
> > > When running consumer and/or producer operations and empty checks in
> > > parallel its possible to have the empty check run past the end of the
> > > array. The scenario occurs when an empty check is run while
> > > __ptr_ring_discard_one() is in progress. Specifically after the
> > > consumer_head is incremented but before (consumer_head >= ring_size)
> > > check is made and the consumer head is zeroe'd.
> > > 
> > > To resolve this, without having to rework how consumer/producer ops
> > > work on the array, simply add an extra dummy slot to the end of the
> > > array. Even if we did a rework to avoid the extra slot it looks
> > > like the normal case checks would suffer some so best to just
> > > allocate an extra pointer.
> > > 
> > > Reported-by: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
> > > Fixes: c5ad119fb6c09 ("net: sched: pfifo_fast use skb_array")
> > > Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
> > 
> > Applied, thanks John.
> 
> I think that patch is wrong. I'd rather it got reverted.

And replaced with something like the following - stil untested, but
apparently there's some urgency to fix it so posting for review ASAP.

John, others, could you pls confirm it's not too bad performance-wise?
I'll then split it up properly and re-post.

-->

net: don't misuse ptr_ring_peek

ptr_ring_peek only claims to be safe if the result is never
dereferenced, which isn't the case for its use in sch_generic.
Add locked API variants and use the bh one here.

Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com>

---

diff --git a/include/linux/ptr_ring.h b/include/linux/ptr_ring.h
index 6866df4..f3d96c7 100644
--- a/include/linux/ptr_ring.h
+++ b/include/linux/ptr_ring.h
@@ -236,6 +236,51 @@ static inline bool ptr_ring_empty_bh(struct ptr_ring *r)
 	return ret;
 }
 
+static inline void *ptr_ring_peek(struct ptr_ring *r)
+{
+	void *ret;
+
+	spin_lock(&r->consumer_lock);
+	ret = __ptr_ring_peek(r);
+	spin_unlock(&r->consumer_lock);
+
+	return ret;
+}
+
+static inline void *ptr_ring_peek_irq(struct ptr_ring *r)
+{
+	void *ret;
+
+	spin_lock_irq(&r->consumer_lock);
+	ret = __ptr_ring_peek(r);
+	spin_unlock_irq(&r->consumer_lock);
+
+	return ret;
+}
+
+static inline void *ptr_ring_peek_any(struct ptr_ring *r)
+{
+	unsigned long flags;
+	void *ret;
+
+	spin_lock_irqsave(&r->consumer_lock, flags);
+	ret = __ptr_ring_peek(r);
+	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&r->consumer_lock, flags);
+
+	return ret;
+}
+
+static inline void *ptr_ring_peek_bh(struct ptr_ring *r)
+{
+	void *ret;
+
+	spin_lock_bh(&r->consumer_lock);
+	ret = __ptr_ring_peek(r);
+	spin_unlock_bh(&r->consumer_lock);
+
+	return ret;
+}
+
 /* Must only be called after __ptr_ring_peek returned !NULL */
 static inline void __ptr_ring_discard_one(struct ptr_ring *r)
 {
diff --git a/include/linux/skb_array.h b/include/linux/skb_array.h
index c7addf3..ee3625c 100644
--- a/include/linux/skb_array.h
+++ b/include/linux/skb_array.h
@@ -97,6 +97,26 @@ static inline bool skb_array_empty_any(struct skb_array *a)
 	return ptr_ring_empty_any(&a->ring);
 }
 
+static inline struct sk_buff *skb_array_peek(struct skb_array *a)
+{
+	return ptr_ring_peek(&a->ring);
+}
+
+static inline struct sk_buff *skb_array_peek_bh(struct skb_array *a)
+{
+	return ptr_ring_peek_bh(&a->ring);
+}
+
+static inline struct sk_buff *skb_array_peek_irq(struct skb_array *a)
+{
+	return ptr_ring_peek_irq(&a->ring);
+}
+
+static inline struct sk_buff *skb_array_peek_any(struct skb_array *a)
+{
+	return ptr_ring_peek_any(&a->ring);
+}
+
 static inline struct sk_buff *skb_array_consume(struct skb_array *a)
 {
 	return ptr_ring_consume(&a->ring);
diff --git a/net/sched/sch_generic.c b/net/sched/sch_generic.c
index cc069b2..9288e84 100644
--- a/net/sched/sch_generic.c
+++ b/net/sched/sch_generic.c
@@ -659,7 +659,7 @@ static struct sk_buff *pfifo_fast_peek(struct Qdisc *qdisc)
 	for (band = 0; band < PFIFO_FAST_BANDS && !skb; band++) {
 		struct skb_array *q = band2list(priv, band);
 
-		skb = __skb_array_peek(q);
+		skb = skb_array_peek_bh(q);
 	}
 
 	return skb;