Message-ID: <019b01d6e3dc$9a940330$cfbc0990$@samsung.com>
Date:   Wed, 6 Jan 2021 12:32:47 +0900
From:   "Dongseok Yi" <dseok.yi@...sung.com>
To:     "'Willem de Bruijn'" <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc:     "'David S. Miller'" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "'Jakub Kicinski'" <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "'Miaohe Lin'" <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
        "'Willem de Bruijn'" <willemb@...gle.com>,
        "'Paolo Abeni'" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        "'Florian Westphal'" <fw@...len.de>,
        "'Al Viro'" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        "'Guillaume Nault'" <gnault@...hat.com>,
        "'Yunsheng Lin'" <linyunsheng@...wei.com>,
        "'Steffen Klassert'" <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
        "'Yadu Kishore'" <kyk.segfault@...il.com>,
        "'Marco Elver'" <elver@...gle.com>,
        "'Network Development'" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "'LKML'" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <namkyu78.kim@...sung.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net] net: fix use-after-free when UDP GRO with shared
 fraglist

On 2021-01-06 12:07, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 8:29 PM Dongseok Yi <dseok.yi@...sung.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 2021-01-05 06:03, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 4:00 AM Dongseok Yi <dseok.yi@...sung.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > skbs in frag_list could be shared by pskb_expand_head() from BPF.
> > >
> > > Can you elaborate on the BPF connection?
> >
> > With the following registered ptypes,
> >
> > /proc/net # cat ptype
> > Type Device      Function
> > ALL           tpacket_rcv
> > 0800          ip_rcv.cfi_jt
> > 0011          llc_rcv.cfi_jt
> > 0004          llc_rcv.cfi_jt
> > 0806          arp_rcv
> > 86dd          ipv6_rcv.cfi_jt
> >
> > BPF checks skb_ensure_writable between tpacket_rcv and ip_rcv
> > (or ipv6_rcv). And it calls pskb_expand_head.
> >
> > [  132.051228] pskb_expand_head+0x360/0x378
> > [  132.051237] skb_ensure_writable+0xa0/0xc4
> > [  132.051249] bpf_skb_pull_data+0x28/0x60
> > [  132.051262] bpf_prog_331d69c77ea5e964_schedcls_ingres+0x5f4/0x1000
> > [  132.051273] cls_bpf_classify+0x254/0x348
> > [  132.051284] tcf_classify+0xa4/0x180
> 
> Ah, you have a BPF program loaded at TC. That was not entirely obvious.
> 
> This program gets called after packet sockets with ptype_all, before
> those with a specific protocol.
> 
> Tcpdump will have inserted a program with ptype_all, which cloned the
> skb. This triggers skb_ensure_writable -> pskb_expand_head ->
> skb_clone_fraglist -> skb_get.
> 
> > [  132.051294] __netif_receive_skb_core+0x590/0xd28
> > [  132.051303] __netif_receive_skb+0x50/0x17c
> > [  132.051312] process_backlog+0x15c/0x1b8
> >
> > >
> > > > While tcpdump, sk_receive_queue of PF_PACKET has the original frag_list.
> > > > But the same frag_list is queued to PF_INET (or PF_INET6) as the fraglist
> > > > chain made by skb_segment_list().
> > > >
> > > > If the new skb (not frag_list) is queued to one of the sk_receive_queue,
> > > > multiple ptypes can see this. The skb could be released by ptypes and
> > > > it causes use-after-free.
> > >
> > > If I understand correctly, a udp-gro-list skb makes it up the receive
> > > path with one or more active packet sockets.
> > >
> > > The packet socket will call skb_clone after accepting the filter. This
> > > replaces the head_skb, but shares the skb_shinfo and thus frag_list.
> > >
> > > udp_rcv_segment later converts the udp-gro-list skb to a list of
> > > regular packets to pass these one-by-one to udp_queue_rcv_one_skb.
> > > Now all the frags are fully fledged packets, with headers pushed
> > > before the payload. This does not change their refcount anymore than
> > > the skb_clone in pf_packet did. This should be 1.
> > >
> > > Eventually udp_recvmsg will call skb_consume_udp on each packet.
> > >
> > > The packet socket eventually also frees its cloned head_skb, which triggers
> > >
> > >   kfree_skb_list(shinfo->frag_list)
> > >     kfree_skb
> > >       skb_unref
> > >         refcount_dec_and_test(&skb->users)
> >
> > Every your understanding is right, but
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > [ 4443.426215] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > > > [ 4443.426222] refcount_t: underflow; use-after-free.
> > > > [ 4443.426291] WARNING: CPU: 7 PID: 28161 at lib/refcount.c:190
> > > > refcount_dec_and_test_checked+0xa4/0xc8
> > > > [ 4443.426726] pstate: 60400005 (nZCv daif +PAN -UAO)
> > > > [ 4443.426732] pc : refcount_dec_and_test_checked+0xa4/0xc8
> > > > [ 4443.426737] lr : refcount_dec_and_test_checked+0xa0/0xc8
> > > > [ 4443.426808] Call trace:
> > > > [ 4443.426813]  refcount_dec_and_test_checked+0xa4/0xc8
> > > > [ 4443.426823]  skb_release_data+0x144/0x264
> > > > [ 4443.426828]  kfree_skb+0x58/0xc4
> > > > [ 4443.426832]  skb_queue_purge+0x64/0x9c
> > > > [ 4443.426844]  packet_set_ring+0x5f0/0x820
> > > > [ 4443.426849]  packet_setsockopt+0x5a4/0xcd0
> > > > [ 4443.426853]  __sys_setsockopt+0x188/0x278
> > > > [ 4443.426858]  __arm64_sys_setsockopt+0x28/0x38
> > > > [ 4443.426869]  el0_svc_common+0xf0/0x1d0
> > > > [ 4443.426873]  el0_svc_handler+0x74/0x98
> > > > [ 4443.426880]  el0_svc+0x8/0xc
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: 3a1296a38d0c (net: Support GRO/GSO fraglist chaining.)
> > > > Signed-off-by: Dongseok Yi <dseok.yi@...sung.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  net/core/skbuff.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
> > > >  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/net/core/skbuff.c b/net/core/skbuff.c
> > > > index f62cae3..1dcbda8 100644
> > > > --- a/net/core/skbuff.c
> > > > +++ b/net/core/skbuff.c
> > > > @@ -3655,7 +3655,8 @@ struct sk_buff *skb_segment_list(struct sk_buff *skb,
> > > >         unsigned int delta_truesize = 0;
> > > >         unsigned int delta_len = 0;
> > > >         struct sk_buff *tail = NULL;
> > > > -       struct sk_buff *nskb;
> > > > +       struct sk_buff *nskb, *tmp;
> > > > +       int err;
> > > >
> > > >         skb_push(skb, -skb_network_offset(skb) + offset);
> > > >
> > > > @@ -3665,11 +3666,28 @@ struct sk_buff *skb_segment_list(struct sk_buff *skb,
> > > >                 nskb = list_skb;
> > > >                 list_skb = list_skb->next;
> > > >
> > > > +               err = 0;
> > > > +               if (skb_shared(nskb)) {
> > >
> > > I must be missing something still. This does not square with my
> > > understanding that the two sockets are operating on clones, with each
> > > frag_list skb having skb->users == 1.
> > >
> > > Unless the packet socket patch previously also triggered an
> > > skb_unclone/pskb_expand_head, as that call skb_clone_fraglist, which
> > > calls skb_get on each frag_list skb.
> >
> > A cloned skb after tpacket_rcv cannot go through skb_ensure_writable
> > with the original shinfo. pskb_expand_head reallocates the shinfo of
> > the skb and call skb_clone_fraglist. skb_release_data in
> > pskb_expand_head could not reduce skb->users of the each frag_list skb
> > if skb_shinfo(skb)->dataref == 2.
> >
> > After the reallocation, skb_shinfo(skb)->dataref == 1 but each frag_list
> > skb could have skb->users == 2.
> 
> Yes, that makes sense. skb_clone_fraglist just increments the
> frag_list skb's refcounts.
> 
> skb_segment_list must create an unshared struct sk_buff before it
> changes skb data to insert the protocol headers.
> 
> > >
> > >
> > > > +                       tmp = skb_clone(nskb, GFP_ATOMIC);
> > > > +                       if (tmp) {
> > > > +                               kfree_skb(nskb);
> > > > +                               nskb = tmp;
> > > > +                               err = skb_unclone(nskb, GFP_ATOMIC);
> 
> Calling clone and unclone in quick succession looks odd.
> 
> But you need the first to create a private skb and to trigger the
> second to create a private copy of the linear data (as well as frags,
> if any, but these are not touched). So this looks okay.
> 
> > > > +                       } else {
> > > > +                               err = -ENOMEM;
> > > > +                       }
> > > > +               }
> > > > +
> > > >                 if (!tail)
> > > >                         skb->next = nskb;
> > > >                 else
> > > >                         tail->next = nskb;
> > > >
> > > > +               if (unlikely(err)) {
> > > > +                       nskb->next = list_skb;
> 
> To avoid leaking these skbs when calling kfree_skb_list(skb->next). Is
> that concern new with this patch, or also needed for the existing
> error case?

It's new for this patch. nskb can lose next skb due to
tmp = skb_clone(nskb, GFP_ATOMIC); on the prior. I believe it is not
needed for the existing errors.

> 
> > > > +                       goto err_linearize;
> > > > +               }
> > > > +
> > > >                 tail = nskb;
> > > >
> > > >                 delta_len += nskb->len;
> > > > --
> > > > 2.7.4
> > > >
> >

Powered by blists - more mailing lists