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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2021 11:20:01 +0000 From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com> To: Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...dia.com> CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>, Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...dia.com>, "bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org>, syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>, "syzbot+9ba1174359adba5a5b7c@...kaller.appspotmail.com" <syzbot+9ba1174359adba5a5b7c@...kaller.appspotmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: bridge: validate the NUD_PERMANENT bit when adding an extern_learn FDB entry On Mon, Aug 02, 2021 at 02:02:36PM +0300, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote: > >> Actually I believe there is still a bug in 52e4bec15546 even with this fix. > >> The flag can change after the dst has been read in br_switchdev_fdb_notify() > >> so in theory you could still do a null pointer dereference. fdb_notify() > >> can be called from a few places without locking. The code shouldn't dereference > >> the dst based on the flag. > > > > Are you thinking of a specific code path that triggers a race between > > (a) a writer side doing WRITE_ONCE(fdb->dst, NULL) and then > > set_bit(BR_FDB_LOCAL, &fdb->flags), exactly in this order, and > > Visible order is not guaranteed, there are no barriers neither at writer nor reader > sides, especially when used without locking. So we cannot make any assumptions > about the order visibility of these writes. > > > (b) a reader side catching that fdb exactly in between the above 2 > > statements, through fdb_notify or otherwise (br_fdb_replay)? > > > > Because I don't see any. > > > > Plus, I am a bit nervous about protecting against theoretical/unproven > > races in a way that masks real bugs, as we would be doing if I add an > > extra check in br_fdb_replay_one and br_switchdev_fdb_notify against the > > case where an entry has fdb->dst == NULL but not BR_FDB_LOCAL. > > > > The bits are _not_ visible atomically with the setting of ->dst. It is obvious > you must not dereference anything based on them, they are only indications when used > outside of locked regions and code must be able to deal with inconsistencies as that > is implied by the way they're used. It is a clear and obvious bug dereferencing based > on a bit that can change in parallel without any memory ordering guarantees. Ok, I will send a separate patch for that. > You are not "masking" anything, but fixing what is currently buggy use of fdb bits. I am "masking" in the sense that the bug I am fixing here was not obvious to me until it triggered a NPD. That would stop happening with the patch I'm about to send, but maybe there are still bridge UAPI functions that do not validate the 'permanent' flag from FDB entries. > As I already said - this doesn't fix the null deref bug completely, in fact it fixes a different > inconsistency, before at worst you'd get blackholed traffic for such entries now > you get a null pointer dereference.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists