netdev - Re: [PATCH net] tun: Fix NULL pointer dereference in XDP redirect

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:   Mon, 28 May 2018 10:24:29 +0800
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:     Toshiaki Makita <toshiaki.makita1@...il.com>,
        Toshiaki Makita <makita.toshiaki@....ntt.co.jp>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] tun: Fix NULL pointer dereference in XDP redirect



On 2018年05月25日 21:43, Toshiaki Makita wrote:

[...]

>>> @@ -1917,16 +1923,22 @@ static ssize_t tun_get_user(struct 
>>> tun_struct *tun, struct tun_file *tfile,
>>>           struct bpf_prog *xdp_prog;
>>>           int ret;
>>> +        local_bh_disable();
>>> +        preempt_disable();
>>>           rcu_read_lock();
>>>           xdp_prog = rcu_dereference(tun->xdp_prog);
>>>           if (xdp_prog) {
>>>               ret = do_xdp_generic(xdp_prog, skb);
>>>               if (ret != XDP_PASS) {
>>>                   rcu_read_unlock();
>>> +                preempt_enable();
>>> +                local_bh_enable();
>>>                   return total_len;
>>>               }
>>>           }
>>>           rcu_read_unlock();
>>> +        preempt_enable();
>>> +        local_bh_enable();
>>>       }
>>>       rcu_read_lock();
>>
>> Good catch, thanks.
>>
>> But I think we can just replace preempt_disable()/enable() with 
>> local_bh_disable()/local_bh_enable() ?
>
> I actually thought the same, but noticed this patch.
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=9ea4c380066fbe 
>
>
> It looks like they do not think local_bh_disable() implies 
> preempt_disable(). But I'm not sure why..
>
> Toshiaki Makita 

I see, there're probably have some subtle differences and implications 
for e.g scheduler or others.

What we what here is to make sure the process is not moved to another 
CPU and bh is enabled. By checking preemptible() function, preemption 
should be disabled after local_bh_disable(). So I think we're safe here.

Thanks