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  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:   Fri, 24 Jan 2020 14:16:03 +0900
From:   Taehee Yoo <ap420073@...il.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/5] netdevsim: fix a race condition in netdevsim operations

On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 23:16, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>

Hi Jakub!

> On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 00:26:22 +0900, Taehee Yoo wrote:
> > On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 23:19, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > Hi Jakub,
> > Thank you for your review!
>
> Thank you for fixing these tricky bugs! :)
>
> > > Perhaps the entire bus dev structure should be freed from release?
> >
> > I tested this like this.
> >
> > @@ -146,6 +161,8 @@ static void nsim_bus_dev_release(struct device *dev)
> >         struct nsim_bus_dev *nsim_bus_dev = to_nsim_bus_dev(dev);
> >
> >         nsim_bus_dev_vfs_disable(nsim_bus_dev);
> > +       ida_free(&nsim_bus_dev_ids, nsim_bus_dev->dev.id);
> > +       kfree(nsim_bus_dev);
> >  }
> > @@ -300,8 +320,6 @@ nsim_bus_dev_new(unsigned int id, unsigned int port_count)
> >  static void nsim_bus_dev_del(struct nsim_bus_dev *nsim_bus_dev)
> >  {
> >         device_unregister(&nsim_bus_dev->dev);
> > -       ida_free(&nsim_bus_dev_ids, nsim_bus_dev->dev.id);
> > -       kfree(nsim_bus_dev);
> >  }
> >
> > It works well. but I'm not sure this is needed.
>
> My concern is that process A opens a sysfs file (eg. numvfs) then
> process B deletes the device, but process A still has a file descriptor
> (and device reference) so it may be able to write/read the numvfs file
> even though nsim_bus_dev was already freed.
>

If I understood kernfs correctly, kernfs internally avoid this situation.
a) When kernfs file is being removed, it waits for all users who are
operating this file(open/read/write, etc...)
b) When kernfs file is removed, the file is disallowed to be used.
c) Opened kernfs file descriptor also will be disallowed to use anymore.
d) File remove routine is finished, resources are freed.
So, user-after-free case couldn't occur.
The below piece of code is kernfs synchronize code.

static void kernfs_drain(struct kernfs_node *kn)
{
 ...
        wait_event(root->deactivate_waitq,
                   atomic_read(&kn->active) == KN_DEACTIVATED_BIAS);
 ...
}

static ssize_t kernfs_fop_write(struct file *file, const char __user *user_buf,
                                size_t count, loff_t *ppos)
{
 ...
        if (!kernfs_get_active(of->kn)) {
                mutex_unlock(&of->mutex);
                len = -ENODEV;
                goto out_free;
        }

        ops = kernfs_ops(of->kn);
        if (ops->write)
                len = ops->write(of, buf, len, *ppos);
        else
                len = -EINVAL;

        kernfs_put_active(of->kn);
 ...
}

void kernfs_put_active(struct kernfs_node *kn)
{
 ...
        v = atomic_dec_return(&kn->active);
        if (likely(v != KN_DEACTIVATED_BIAS))
                return;

        wake_up_all(&kernfs_root(kn)->deactivate_waitq);
}

I have tested this code, it works well.

> I may very well be wrong, and something else may be preventing this
> condition. It's just a bit strange to see release free an internal
> sub-structure, while the main structure is freed immediately..
>

I didn't think about ordering of resource release routine.
So I took a look at the release routine.

del_device_store()
    nsim_bus_dev_del()
        nsim_bus_dev_del()
            kobject_put()
                device_release()
                    nsim_bus_dev_release()
                        kfree(nsim_bus_dev->vconfigs)
    kfree(nsim_bus_dev)

Before freeing nsim_bus_dev, all resources are freed in the
device_unregister(). So, I think it's safe.

> > > >       unsigned int num_vfs;
> > > >       int ret;
> > > >
> > > > +     if (!mutex_trylock(&nsim_bus_dev_ops_lock))
> > > > +             return -EBUSY;
> > >
> > > Why the trylocks? Are you trying to catch the races between unregister
> > > and other ops?
> > >
> >
> > The reason is to avoid deadlock.
> > If we use mutex_lock() instead of mutex_trylock(), the below message
> > will be printed and actual deadlock also appeared.
>
> > [  426.907883][  T805]  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> > [  426.907883][  T805]
> > [  426.908715][  T805]        CPU0                    CPU1
> > [  426.909312][  T805]        ----                    ----
> > [  426.909902][  T805]   lock(kn->count#170);
> > [  426.910372][  T805]
> > lock(nsim_bus_dev_ops_lock);
> > [  426.911277][  T805]                                lock(kn->count#170);
> > [  426.912032][  T805]   lock(nsim_bus_dev_ops_lock);
>
> > Locking ordering of {new/del}_device() and {new/del}_port is different.
> > So, a deadlock could occur.
>
> Hm, we can't use the same lock for the bus ops and port ops.
> But the port ops already take port lock, do we really need
> another lock there?
>

A synchronize routine is needed.
new_port() and del_port() operations access many device resources.
It could be used even before resources are allocated or initialized.
So, new_port() and del_port() should be allowed to use after resources
are initialized. But sriov_numvfs() doesn't use uninitialized resource
so it doesn't make any problem.

If a simple flag variable is used, we can avoid using a trylock.
The flag is set after resources are initialized.
So if new_port() and del_port() check the flag, it doesn't access
uninitialized resources.

I would like to try to avoid using trylock.

> Also does nsim_bus_exit() really need to iterate over devices to remove
> them? Does core not do it for us?

I couldn't find the logic, which remove devices.
So I think it's needed.

Thank you!
Taehee Yoo

Powered by blists - more mailing lists