netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 02/11] net, sk_msg: Annotate lockless access to sk

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, 13 Jan 2020 16:09:47 +0100
From:   Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>
To:     John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Cc:     bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@...udflare.com, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 02/11] net, sk_msg: Annotate lockless access to sk_prot on clone

On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 12:14 AM CET, John Fastabend wrote:
> Jakub Sitnicki wrote:
>> sk_msg and ULP frameworks override protocol callbacks pointer in
>> sk->sk_prot, while TCP accesses it locklessly when cloning the listening
>> socket.
>>
>> Once we enable use of listening sockets with sockmap (and hence sk_msg),
>> there can be shared access to sk->sk_prot if socket is getting cloned while
>> being inserted/deleted to/from the sockmap from another CPU. Mark the
>> shared access with READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE annotations.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>
>
> In sockmap side I fixed this by wrapping the access in a lock_sock[0]. So
> Do you think this is still needed with that in mind? The bpf_clone call
> is using sk_prot_creater and also setting the newsk's proto field. Even
> if the listening parent sock was being deleted in parallel would that be
> a problem? We don't touch sk_prot_creator from the tear down path. I've
> only scanned the 3..11 patches so maybe the answer is below. If that is
> the case probably an improved commit message would be helpful.

I think it is needed. Not because of tcp_bpf_clone or that we access
listener's sk_prot_creator from there, if I'm grasping your question.

Either way I'm glad this came up. Let's go though my reasoning and
verify it. tcp stack accesses the listener sk_prot while cloning it:

tcp_v4_rcv
  sk = __inet_lookup_skb(...)
  tcp_check_req(sk)
    inet_csk(sk)->icsk_af_ops->syn_recv_sock
      tcp_v4_syn_recv_sock
        tcp_create_openreq_child
          inet_csk_clone_lock
            sk_clone_lock
              READ_ONCE(sk->sk_prot)

It grabs a reference to the listener, but doesn't grab the sk_lock.

On another CPU we can be inserting/removing the listener socket from the
sockmap and writing to its sk_prot. We have the update and the remove
path:

sock_map_ops->map_update_elem
  sock_map_update_elem
    sock_map_update_common
      sock_map_link_no_progs
        tcp_bpf_init
          tcp_bpf_update_sk_prot
            sk_psock_update_proto
              WRITE_ONCE(sk->sk_prot, ops)

sock_map_ops->map_delete_elem
  sock_map_delete_elem
    __sock_map_delete
     sock_map_unref
       sk_psock_put
         sk_psock_drop
           sk_psock_restore_proto
             tcp_update_ulp
               WRITE_ONCE(sk->sk_prot, proto)

Following the guidelines from KTSAN project [0], sk_prot looks like a
candidate for annotating it. At least on these 3 call paths.

If that sounds correct, I can add it to the patch description.

Thanks,
-jkbs

[0] https://github.com/google/ktsan/wiki/READ_ONCE-and-WRITE_ONCE