[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4a5d84b7-f3cb-c4e1-d6fe-28d186a551ee@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 11:03:36 +0800
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@...wei.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
eric dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
xiyou wangcong <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
weiyongjun1@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] tun: fix use-after-free when register netdev failed
On 2019/9/3 上午9:45, Yang Yingliang wrote:
>
>
> On 2019/9/2 13:32, Jason Wang wrote:
>>
>> On 2019/8/23 下午5:36, Yang Yingliang wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2019/8/23 11:05, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2019/8/22 14:07, Yang Yingliang wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2019/8/22 10:13, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2019/8/20 上午10:28, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2019/8/20 上午9:25, David Miller wrote:
>>>>>>>>> From: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@...wei.com>
>>>>>>>>> Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 21:31:19 +0800
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Call tun_attach() after register_netdevice() to make sure
>>>>>>>>>> tfile->tun
>>>>>>>>>> is not published until the netdevice is registered. So the
>>>>>>>>>> read/write
>>>>>>>>>> thread can not use the tun pointer that may freed by
>>>>>>>>>> free_netdev().
>>>>>>>>>> (The tun and dev pointer are allocated by alloc_netdev_mqs(),
>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>> be freed by netdev_freemem().)
>>>>>>>>> register_netdevice() must always be the last operation in the
>>>>>>>>> order of
>>>>>>>>> network device setup.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At the point register_netdevice() is called, the device is
>>>>>>>>> visible
>>>>>>>>> globally
>>>>>>>>> and therefore all of it's software state must be fully
>>>>>>>>> initialized and
>>>>>>>>> ready for us.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You're going to have to find another solution to these problems.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The device is loosely coupled with sockets/queues. Each side is
>>>>>>>> allowed to be go away without caring the other side. So in this
>>>>>>>> case, there's a small window that network stack think the
>>>>>>>> device has
>>>>>>>> one queue but actually not, the code can then safely drop them.
>>>>>>>> Maybe it's ok here with some comments?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or if not, we can try to hold the device before tun_attach and
>>>>>>>> drop
>>>>>>>> it after register_netdevice().
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Yang:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think maybe we can try to hold refcnt instead of playing real num
>>>>>>> queues here. Do you want to post a V4?
>>>>>> I think the refcnt can prevent freeing the memory in this case.
>>>>>> When register_netdevice() failed, free_netdev() will be called
>>>>>> directly,
>>>>>> dev->pcpu_refcnt and dev are freed without checking refcnt of dev.
>>>>> How about using patch-v1 that using a flag to check whether the
>>>>> device
>>>>> registered successfully.
>>>>>
>>>> As I said, it lacks sufficient locks or barriers. To be clear, I meant
>>>> something like (compile-test only):
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/tun.c b/drivers/net/tun.c
>>>> index db16d7a13e00..e52678f9f049 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/tun.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/tun.c
>>>> @@ -2828,6 +2828,7 @@ static int tun_set_iff(struct net *net,
>>>> struct file *file, struct ifreq *ifr)
>>>> (ifr->ifr_flags & TUN_FEATURES);
>>>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&tun->disabled);
>>>> + dev_hold(dev);
>>>> err = tun_attach(tun, file, false, ifr->ifr_flags
>>>> & IFF_NAPI,
>>>> ifr->ifr_flags & IFF_NAPI_FRAGS);
>>>> if (err < 0)
>>>> @@ -2836,6 +2837,7 @@ static int tun_set_iff(struct net *net,
>>>> struct file *file, struct ifreq *ifr)
>>>> err = register_netdevice(tun->dev);
>>>> if (err < 0)
>>>> goto err_detach;
>>>> + dev_put(dev);
>>>> }
>>>> netif_carrier_on(tun->dev);
>>>> @@ -2852,11 +2854,13 @@ static int tun_set_iff(struct net *net,
>>>> struct file *file, struct ifreq *ifr)
>>>> return 0;
>>>> err_detach:
>>>> + dev_put(dev);
>>>> tun_detach_all(dev);
>>>> /* register_netdevice() already called tun_free_netdev() */
>>>> goto err_free_dev;
>>>> err_free_flow:
>>>> + dev_put(dev);
>>>> tun_flow_uninit(tun);
>>>> security_tun_dev_free_security(tun->security);
>>>> err_free_stat:
>>>>
>>>> What's your thought?
>>>
>>> The dev pointer are freed without checking the refcount in
>>> free_netdev() called by err_free_dev
>>>
>>> path, so I don't understand how the refcount protects this pointer.
>>>
>>
>> The refcount are guaranteed to be zero there, isn't it?
> No, it's not.
>
> err_free_dev:
> free_netdev(dev);
>
> void free_netdev(struct net_device *dev)
> {
> ...
> /* pcpu_refcnt can be freed without checking refcount */
> free_percpu(dev->pcpu_refcnt);
> dev->pcpu_refcnt = NULL;
>
> /* Compatibility with error handling in drivers */
> if (dev->reg_state == NETREG_UNINITIALIZED) {
> /* dev can be freed without checking refcount */
> netdev_freemem(dev);
> return;
> }
> ...
> }
Right, but what I meant is in my patch, when code reaches free_netdev()
the refcnt is zero. What did I miss?
Thanks
>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Yang
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> .
>>
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists