| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 14:37:06 -0700
From: Joe Stringer <joe@...d.net.nz>
To: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>
Cc: Joe Stringer <joe@...d.net.nz>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Martin Lau <kafai@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 bpf-next 4/5] bpf: Don't refcount LISTEN sockets in sk_assign()
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 3:21 AM Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 at 20:47, Joe Stringer <joe@...d.net.nz> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 3:29 AM Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 at 05:58, Joe Stringer <joe@...d.net.nz> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Avoid taking a reference on listen sockets by checking the socket type
> > > > in the sk_assign and in the corresponding skb_steal_sock() code in the
> > > > the transport layer, and by ensuring that the prefetch free (sock_pfree)
> > > > function uses the same logic to check whether the socket is refcounted.
> > > >
> > > > Suggested-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Joe Stringer <joe@...d.net.nz>
> > > > ---
> > > > v2: Initial version
> > > > ---
> > > > include/net/sock.h | 25 +++++++++++++++++--------
> > > > net/core/filter.c | 6 +++---
> > > > net/core/sock.c | 3 ++-
> > > > 3 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/include/net/sock.h b/include/net/sock.h
> > > > index 1ca2e808cb8e..3ec1865f173e 100644
> > > > --- a/include/net/sock.h
> > > > +++ b/include/net/sock.h
> > > > @@ -2533,6 +2533,21 @@ skb_sk_is_prefetched(struct sk_buff *skb)
> > > > return skb->destructor == sock_pfree;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > +/* This helper checks if a socket is a full socket,
> > > > + * ie _not_ a timewait or request socket.
> > > > + */
> > > > +static inline bool sk_fullsock(const struct sock *sk)
> > > > +{
> > > > + return (1 << sk->sk_state) & ~(TCPF_TIME_WAIT | TCPF_NEW_SYN_RECV);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static inline bool
> > > > +sk_is_refcounted(struct sock *sk)
> > > > +{
> > > > + /* Only full sockets have sk->sk_flags. */
> > > > + return !sk_fullsock(sk) || !sock_flag(sk, SOCK_RCU_FREE);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > /**
> > > > * skb_steal_sock
> > > > * @skb to steal the socket from
> > > > @@ -2545,6 +2560,8 @@ skb_steal_sock(struct sk_buff *skb, bool *refcounted)
> > > > struct sock *sk = skb->sk;
> > > >
> > > > *refcounted = true;
> > > > + if (skb_sk_is_prefetched(skb))
> > > > + *refcounted = sk_is_refcounted(sk);
> > > > skb->destructor = NULL;
> > > > skb->sk = NULL;
> > > > return sk;
> > > > @@ -2553,14 +2570,6 @@ skb_steal_sock(struct sk_buff *skb, bool *refcounted)
> > > > return NULL;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > -/* This helper checks if a socket is a full socket,
> > > > - * ie _not_ a timewait or request socket.
> > > > - */
> > > > -static inline bool sk_fullsock(const struct sock *sk)
> > > > -{
> > > > - return (1 << sk->sk_state) & ~(TCPF_TIME_WAIT | TCPF_NEW_SYN_RECV);
> > > > -}
> > > > -
> > > > /* Checks if this SKB belongs to an HW offloaded socket
> > > > * and whether any SW fallbacks are required based on dev.
> > > > * Check decrypted mark in case skb_orphan() cleared socket.
> > > > diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c
> > > > index 0fada7fe9b75..997b8606167e 100644
> > > > --- a/net/core/filter.c
> > > > +++ b/net/core/filter.c
> > > > @@ -5343,8 +5343,7 @@ static const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_sk_lookup_udp_proto = {
> > > >
> > > > BPF_CALL_1(bpf_sk_release, struct sock *, sk)
> > > > {
> > > > - /* Only full sockets have sk->sk_flags. */
> > > > - if (!sk_fullsock(sk) || !sock_flag(sk, SOCK_RCU_FREE))
> > > > + if (sk_is_refcounted(sk))
> > > > sock_gen_put(sk);
> > > > return 0;
> > > > }
> > > > @@ -5870,7 +5869,8 @@ BPF_CALL_3(bpf_sk_assign, struct sk_buff *, skb, struct sock *, sk, u64, flags)
> > > > return -ESOCKTNOSUPPORT;
> > > > if (unlikely(dev_net(skb->dev) != sock_net(sk)))
> > > > return -ENETUNREACH;
> > > > - if (unlikely(!refcount_inc_not_zero(&sk->sk_refcnt)))
> > > > + if (sk_is_refcounted(sk) &&
> > > > + unlikely(!refcount_inc_not_zero(&sk->sk_refcnt)))
> > > > return -ENOENT;
> > > >
> > > > skb_orphan(skb);
> > > > diff --git a/net/core/sock.c b/net/core/sock.c
> > > > index cfaf60267360..a2ab79446f59 100644
> > > > --- a/net/core/sock.c
> > > > +++ b/net/core/sock.c
> > > > @@ -2076,7 +2076,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(sock_efree);
> > > > */
> > > > void sock_pfree(struct sk_buff *skb)
> > > > {
> > > > - sock_edemux(skb);
> > > > + if (sk_is_refcounted(skb->sk))
> > > > + sock_edemux(skb);
> > >
> > > sock_edemux calls sock_gen_put, which is also called by
> > > bpf_sk_release. Is it worth teaching sock_gen_put about
> > > sk_fullsock, and dropping the other helpers? I was considering this
> > > when fixing up sk_release, but then forgot
> > > about it.
> >
> > I like the idea, but I'm concerned about breaking things outside the
> > focus of this new helper if the skb_sk_is_prefetched() function from
> > patch 1 is allowed to return true for sockets other than the ones
> > assigned from the bpf_sk_assign() helper. At a glance there's users of
> > sock_efree (which sock_edemux can be defined to) like netem_enqueue()
> > which may inadvertently trigger unexpected paths here. I think it's
> > more explicit so more obviously correct if the destructor pointer used
> > in this series is unique compared to other paths, even if the
> > underlying code is the same.
>
> Sorry, I didn't mean to get rid of sock_pfree, I was referring to
> sk_fullsock and
> sk_is_refcounted. My point was that it's weird that sock_gen_put isn't
> actually generic because it doesn't properly handle SOCK_RCU_FREE.
I briefly looked into this, and I'm still not confident that all
existing usage of sock_gen_put() is handling SOCK_RCU_FREE in a way
that would be consistent with pushing this check into sock_gen_put().
I think it's something worth digging into, but I'd prefer to dig into
it separately from this series.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists