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:   Mon, 13 Jul 2020 09:53:15 -0700
From:   Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>
To:     Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@...il.com>
Cc:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>,
        Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...el.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        A.Zema@...convsystems.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf v2] xsk: fix memory leak and packet loss in Tx skb
 path

On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 09:39:58AM +0200, Magnus Karlsson wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 1:28 AM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Magnus,
> >
> > On 7/10/20 8:45 AM, Magnus Karlsson wrote:
> > > In the skb Tx path, transmission of a packet is performed with
> > > dev_direct_xmit(). When QUEUE_STATE_FROZEN is set in the transmit
> > > routines, it returns NETDEV_TX_BUSY signifying that it was not
> > > possible to send the packet now, please try later. Unfortunately, the
> > > xsk transmit code discarded the packet, missed to free the skb, and
> > > returned EBUSY to the application. Fix this memory leak and
> > > unnecessary packet loss, by not discarding the packet in the Tx ring,
> > > freeing the allocated skb, and return EAGAIN. As EAGAIN is returned to the
> > > application, it can then retry the send operation and the packet will
> > > finally be sent as we will likely not be in the QUEUE_STATE_FROZEN
> > > state anymore. So EAGAIN tells the application that the packet was not
> > > discarded from the Tx ring and that it needs to call send()
> > > again. EBUSY, on the other hand, signifies that the packet was not
> > > sent and discarded from the Tx ring. The application needs to put the
> > > packet on the Tx ring again if it wants it to be sent.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 35fcde7f8deb ("xsk: support for Tx")
> > > Signed-off-by: Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>
> > > Reported-by: Arkadiusz Zema <A.Zema@...convsystems.com>
> > > Suggested-by: Arkadiusz Zema <A.Zema@...convsystems.com>
> > > ---
> > > The v1 of this patch was called "xsk: do not discard packet when
> > > QUEUE_STATE_FROZEN".
> > > ---
> > >   net/xdp/xsk.c | 13 +++++++++++--
> > >   1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/net/xdp/xsk.c b/net/xdp/xsk.c
> > > index 3700266..5304250 100644
> > > --- a/net/xdp/xsk.c
> > > +++ b/net/xdp/xsk.c
> > > @@ -376,13 +376,22 @@ static int xsk_generic_xmit(struct sock *sk)
> > >               skb->destructor = xsk_destruct_skb;
> > >
> > >               err = dev_direct_xmit(skb, xs->queue_id);
> > > -             xskq_cons_release(xs->tx);
> > >               /* Ignore NET_XMIT_CN as packet might have been sent */
> > > -             if (err == NET_XMIT_DROP || err == NETDEV_TX_BUSY) {
> > > +             if (err == NET_XMIT_DROP) {
> > >                       /* SKB completed but not sent */
> > > +                     xskq_cons_release(xs->tx);
> > >                       err = -EBUSY;
> > >                       goto out;
> > > +             } else if  (err == NETDEV_TX_BUSY) {
> > > +                     /* QUEUE_STATE_FROZEN, tell application to
> > > +                      * retry sending the packet
> > > +                      */
> > > +                     skb->destructor = NULL;
> > > +                     kfree_skb(skb);
> > > +                     err = -EAGAIN;
> > > +                     goto out;
> >
> > Hmm, I'm probably missing something or I should blame my current lack of coffee,
> > but I'll ask anyway.. What is the relation here to the kfree_skb{,_list}() in
> > dev_direct_xmit() when we have NETDEV_TX_BUSY condition? Wouldn't the patch above
> > double-free with NETDEV_TX_BUSY?
> 
> I think you are correct even without coffee :-). I misinterpreted the
> following piece of code in dev_direct_xmit():
> 
> if (!dev_xmit_complete(ret))
>      kfree_skb(skb);

I did look carefuly at this, but apparently forgot about the "!" part of
the conditional while looking at dev_xmit_complete() internals:

    return (NETDEV_TX_BUSY < NET_XMIT_MASK)
    return (0x10 < 0x0f)
    return false;
-- 
Jonathan

Powered by blists - more mailing lists