netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf 1/4] bpf, sockmap: Remove unhash handler for BPF sockmap usage

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <616fa9127fa63_340c7208ef@john-XPS-13-9370.notmuch>
Date:   Tue, 19 Oct 2021 22:28:50 -0700
From:   John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
To:     Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Cc:     bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
        joamaki@...il.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf 1/4] bpf, sockmap: Remove unhash handler for BPF
 sockmap usage

Jakub Sitnicki wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 09:16 PM CEST, John Fastabend wrote:
> > We do not need to handle unhash from BPF side we can simply wait for the
> > close to happen. The original concern was a socket could transition from
> > ESTABLISHED state to a new state while the BPF hook was still attached.
> > But, we convinced ourself this is no longer possible and we also
> > improved BPF sockmap to handle listen sockets so this is no longer a
> > problem.
> >
> > More importantly though there are cases where unhash is called when data is
> > in the receive queue. The BPF unhash logic will flush this data which is
> > wrong. To be correct it should keep the data in the receive queue and allow
> > a receiving application to continue reading the data. This may happen when
> > tcp_abort is received for example. Instead of complicating the logic in
> > unhash simply moving all this to tcp_close hook solves this.
> >
> > Fixes: 51199405f9672 ("bpf: skb_verdict, support SK_PASS on RX BPF path")
> > Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
> > ---
> 
> Doesn't this open the possibility of having a TCP_CLOSE socket in
> sockmap if I disconnect it, that is call connect(AF_UNSPEC), instead of
> close it?

Correct it means we may have TCP_CLOSE socket in the map. I'm not
seeing any problem with this though. A send on the socket would
fail the sk_state checks in the send hooks. (tcp.c:1245). Receiving
from the TCP stack would fail with normal TCP stack checks.

Maybe we want a check on redirect into ingress if the sock is in
ESTABLISHED state as well? I might push that in its own patch
though it seems related, but I think we should have that there
regardless of this patch.

Did you happen to see any issues on the sock_map side for close case?
It looks good to me.

.John