Message-ID: <20200213112200.7qv2a7em64jpyjs3@steredhat>
Date:   Thu, 13 Feb 2020 12:22:00 +0100
From:   Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To:     "Boeuf, Sebastien" <sebastien.boeuf@...el.com>
Cc:     "stefanha@...hat.com" <stefanha@...hat.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: virtio_vsock: Fix race condition between bind and
 listen

On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 11:13:55AM +0000, Boeuf, Sebastien wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-02-13 at 12:02 +0100, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 10:44:18AM +0000, Boeuf, Sebastien wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2020-02-13 at 11:22 +0100, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 09:51:36AM +0000, Boeuf, Sebastien wrote:
> > > > > Hi Stefano,
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Thu, 2020-02-13 at 10:41 +0100, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Sebastien,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 09:16:11AM +0000, Boeuf, Sebastien
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > From 2f1276d02f5a12d85aec5adc11dfe1eab7e160d6 Mon Sep 17
> > > > > > > 00:00:00
> > > > > > > 2001
> > > > > > > From: Sebastien Boeuf <sebastien.boeuf@...el.com>
> > > > > > > Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 08:50:38 +0100
> > > > > > > Subject: [PATCH] net: virtio_vsock: Fix race condition
> > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > bind
> > > > > > > and listen
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Whenever the vsock backend on the host sends a packet
> > > > > > > through
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > RX
> > > > > > > queue, it expects an answer on the TX queue. Unfortunately,
> > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > is one
> > > > > > > case where the host side will hang waiting for the answer
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > effectively never recover.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Do you have a test case?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yes I do. This has been a bug we've been investigating on Kata
> > > > > Containers for quite some time now. This was happening when
> > > > > using
> > > > > Kata
> > > > > along with Cloud-Hypervisor (which rely on the hybrid vsock
> > > > > implementation from Firecracker). The thing is, this bug is
> > > > > very
> > > > > hard
> > > > > to reproduce and was happening for Kata because of the
> > > > > connection
> > > > > strategy. The kata-runtime tries to connect a million times
> > > > > after
> > > > > it
> > > > > started the VM, just hoping the kata-agent will start to listen
> > > > > from
> > > > > the guest side at some point.
> > > > 
> > > > Maybe is related to something else. I tried the following which
> > > > should be
> > > > your case simplified (IIUC):
> > > > 
> > > > guest$ python
> > > >     import socket
> > > >     s = socket.socket(socket.AF_VSOCK, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
> > > >     s.bind((socket.VMADDR_CID_ANY, 1234))
> > > > 
> > > > host$ python
> > > >     import socket
> > > >     s = socket.socket(socket.AF_VSOCK, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
> > > >     s.connect((3, 1234))
> > > > 
> > > > Traceback (most recent call last):
> > > >   File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
> > > > TimeoutError: [Errno 110] Connection timed out
> > > 
> > > Yes this is exactly the simplified case. But that's the point, I
> > > don't
> > > think the timeout is the best way to go here. Because this means
> > > that
> > > when we run into this case, the host side will wait for quite some
> > > time
> > > before retrying, which can cause a very long delay before the
> > > communication with the guest is established. By simply answering
> > > the
> > > host with a RST packet, we inform it that nobody's listening on the
> > > guest side yet, therefore the host side will close and try again.
> > 
> > Yes, make sense.
> > 
> > I just wanted to point out that the host shouldn't get stuck if the
> > guest doesn't respond. So it's weird that this happens and it might
> > be
> > related to some other problem.
> 
> Yes that's because we're using the hybrid vsock implementation from
> Firecracker. So basically they proxy a UNIX socket connection into a
> VSOCK socket. And the timeout is not implemented. I'll point them out
> that's something it'd be nice to have along with this fix in the guest.
> 

Okay, now I get it.

> > 
> > > > > > In the host, the af_vsock.c:vsock_stream_connect() set a
> > > > > > timeout,
> > > > > > so
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > the host try to connect before the guest starts listening,
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > connect()
> > > > > > should return ETIMEDOUT if the guest does not answer
> > > > > > anything.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Anyway, maybe the patch make sense anyway, changing a bit the
> > > > > > description
> > > > > > (if the host connect() receive the ETIMEDOUT).
> > > > > > I'm just concerned that this code is common between guest and
> > > > > > host.
> > > > > > If a
> > > > > > malicious guest starts sending us wrong requests, we spend
> > > > > > time
> > > > > > sending
> > > > > > a reset packet. But we already do that if we can't find the
> > > > > > bound
> > > > > > socket,
> > > > > > so it might make sense.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yes I don't think this is gonna cause more trouble, but at
> > > > > least we
> > > > > cannot end up in this weird situation I described.
> > > > 
> > > > Okay, but in the host, we can't trust the guest to answer, we
> > > > should
> > > > handle this case properly.
> > > 
> > > Well I cannot agree more with the "we cannot trust the guest"
> > > philosophy, but in this case the worst thing that can happen is the
> > > guest shooting himself in the foot because it would simply prevent
> > > the
> > > connection from happening.
> > > 
> > > And I agree setting up a timeout from the host side is still a good
> > > idea for preventing from such DOS attack.
> > > 
> > > But as I mentioned above, in the normal use case, this allows for
> > > better responsiveness when it comes to establish the connection as
> > > fast
> > > as possible.
> > 
> > Sure, maybe you can rewrite a bit the commit (title and body) to
> > explain
> > this.
> 
> Of course, let me work on this.
> How am I supposed to resend the patch? Should I send a new email with
> v2 in the title?
> 

Yes, v2 in the []. Something like this:
[PATCH net v2] vsock/virtio: ...

> > 
> > > > > I was just not sure if the function we should use to do the
> > > > > reset
> > > > > should be virtio_transport_reset_no_sock() or
> > > > > virtio_transport_reset()
> > > > > since at this point the socket is already bound.
> > > > 
> > > > I think you can safely use virtio_transport_reset() in this case.
> > > 
> > > I've just tried it and unfortunately it doesn't work. I think
> > > that's
> > > because the connection has not been properly established yet, so we
> > > cannot consider being in this case.
> > > Using virtio_transport_reset_no_sock() seems like the less
> > > intrusive
> > > function here.
> > 
> > Oh sorry, I also put a comment on virtio_transport_reset() to say to
> > use it
> > only on connected sockets and not listeners.
> > In this case it's a listener, sorry for the wrong suggestion.
> 
> Hehe no worries, at least we're on the same page :)
> 

:-)

Thanks,
Stefano

Powered by blists - more mailing lists