netdev - Re: [net-next v1 PATCH 1/2] xdp: revert forced mem allocator removal for page

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:   Sat, 09 Nov 2019 09:34:50 -0800
From:   "Jonathan Lemon" <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>
To:     "Jesper Dangaard Brouer" <brouer@...hat.com>
Cc:     "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@...hat.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        "Ilias Apalodimas" <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>,
        "Saeed Mahameed" <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
        "Matteo Croce" <mcroce@...hat.com>,
        "Lorenzo Bianconi" <lorenzo@...nel.org>,
        "Tariq Toukan" <tariqt@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next v1 PATCH 1/2] xdp: revert forced mem allocator removal
 for page_pool

On 9 Nov 2019, at 8:11, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:

> On Fri, 08 Nov 2019 11:16:43 -0800
> "Jonathan Lemon" <jonathan.lemon@...il.com> wrote:
>
>>> diff --git a/net/core/page_pool.c b/net/core/page_pool.c
>>> index 5bc65587f1c4..226f2eb30418 100644
>>> --- a/net/core/page_pool.c
>>> +++ b/net/core/page_pool.c
>>> @@ -346,7 +346,7 @@ static void __warn_in_flight(struct page_pool
>>> *pool)
>>>
>>>  	distance = _distance(hold_cnt, release_cnt);
>>>
>>> -	/* Drivers should fix this, but only problematic when DMA is used */
>>> +	/* BUG but warn as kernel should crash later */
>>>  	WARN(1, "Still in-flight pages:%d hold:%u released:%u",
>>>  	     distance, hold_cnt, release_cnt);
>
> Because this is kept as a WARN, I set pool->ring.queue = NULL later.

... which is also an API violation, reaching into the ring internals.
I strongly dislike this.


>>>  }
>>> @@ -360,12 +360,16 @@ void __page_pool_free(struct page_pool *pool)
>>>  	WARN(pool->alloc.count, "API usage violation");
>>>  	WARN(!ptr_ring_empty(&pool->ring), "ptr_ring is not empty");
>>>
>>> -	/* Can happen due to forced shutdown */
>>>  	if (!__page_pool_safe_to_destroy(pool))
>>>  		__warn_in_flight(pool);
>>
>> If it's not safe to destroy, we shouldn't be getting here.
>
> Don't make such assumptions. The API is going to be used by driver
> developer and they are always a little too creative...

If the driver hits this case, the driver has a bug, and it isn't
safe to continue in any fashion.  The developer needs to fix their
driver in that case.  (see stmmac code)


> The page_pool is a separate facility, it is not tied to the
> xdp_rxq_info memory model.  Some drivers use page_pool directly e.g.
> drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac.  It can easily trigger this case,
> when some extend that driver.

Yes, and I pointed out that the mem_info should likely be completely
detached from xdp.c since it really has nothing to do with XDP.
The stmmac driver is actually broken at the moment, as it tries to
free the pool immediately without a timeout.

What should be happening is that drivers just call page_pool_destroy(),
which kicks off the shutdown process if this was the last user ref,
and delays destruction if packets are in flight.



>>>  	ptr_ring_cleanup(&pool->ring, NULL);
>>>
>>> +	/* Make sure kernel will crash on use-after-free */
>>> +	pool->ring.queue = NULL;
>>> +	pool->alloc.cache[PP_ALLOC_CACHE_SIZE - 1] = NULL;
>>> +	pool->alloc.count = PP_ALLOC_CACHE_SIZE;
>>
>> The pool is going to be freed.  This is useless code; if we're
>> really concerned about use-after-free, the correct place for catching
>> this is with the memory-allocator tools, not scattering things like
>> this ad-hoc over the codebase.
>
> No, I need this code here, because we kept the above WARN() and didn't
> change that into a BUG().  It is obviously not a full solution for
> use-after-free detection.  The memory subsystem have kmemleak to catch
> this kind of stuff, but nobody runs this in production.  I need this
> here to catch some obvious runtime cases.

The WARN() indicates something went off the rails already.  I really
don't like half-assed solutions like the above; it may or may not work
properly.  If it doesn't work properly, then what's the point?
-- 
Jonathan