[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200703204810.GB1321275@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 22:48:10 +0200
From: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>
To: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
ast@...nel.org, brouer@...hat.com, toke@...hat.com,
lorenzo.bianconi@...hat.com, dsahern@...nel.org,
andrii.nakryiko@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 bpf-next 5/9] bpf: cpumap: add the possibility to
attach an eBPF program to cpumap
> On 6/30/20 2:49 PM, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> [...]
[...]
> > old_rcpu = xchg(&cmap->cpu_map[key_cpu], rcpu);
> > if (old_rcpu) {
> > + if (old_rcpu->prog)
> > + bpf_prog_put(old_rcpu->prog);
> > call_rcu(&old_rcpu->rcu, __cpu_map_entry_free);
> > INIT_WORK(&old_rcpu->kthread_stop_wq, cpu_map_kthread_stop);
> > schedule_work(&old_rcpu->kthread_stop_wq);
>
> Hm, not quite sure I follow the logic here. Why is the bpf_prog_put() not placed inside
> __cpu_map_entry_free(), for example? Wouldn't this at least leave a potential small race
> window of UAF given the rest is still live? If we already piggy-back from RCU side on
> rcpu entry, why not having it in __cpu_map_entry_free()?
ack right, thanks for spotting this issue. I guess we can even move
"bpf_prog_put(rcpu->prog)" in put_cpu_map_entry() so the last consumer
of bpf_cpu_map_entry will free the attached program. Agree?
Regards,
Lorenzo
>
> Thanks,
> Daniel
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists