netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: linkwatch: ignore events for unregistered netdevs

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: <CANn89iJPs13ndN3PCs6KDAetMUg7N5RzG9_ixvQCmswmcN28mw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 25 Apr 2022 08:31:23 -0700
From:   Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Jacky Chou <jackychou@...x.com.tw>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
        Lino Sanfilippo <LinoSanfilippo@....de>,
        Philipp Rosenberger <p.rosenberger@...bus.com>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: linkwatch: ignore events for unregistered netdevs

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 8:28 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 08:13:40 -0700 Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > dev_hold() has been an increment of a refcount, and dev_put() a decrement.
> >
> > Not sure why it is fundamentally broken.
>
> Jann described a case where someone does
>
>     CPU 0      CPU 1     CPU 2
>
>   dev_hold()
>    ------  #unregister -------
>              dev_hold()
>                          dev_put()
>
> Our check for refcount == 0 goes over the CPUs one by one,
> so if it sums up CPUs 0 and 1 at the "unregister" point above
> and CPU2 after the CPU1 hold and CPU2 release it will "miss"
> one refcount.
>
> That's a problem unless doing a dev_hold() on a netdev we only have
> a reference on is illegal.

What is 'illegal' is trying to keep using the device after #unregister.

We have barriers to prevent that.

Somehow a layer does not care about the barriers and pretends the
device is still good to use.

It is of course perfectly fine to stack multiple dev_hold() from one
path (if these do not leak, but this is a different issue)

>
> > There are specific steps at device dismantles making sure no more
> > users can dev_hold()
> >
> > It is a contract. Any buggy layer can overwrite any piece of memory,
> > including a refcount_t.
> >
> > Traditionally we could not add a test in dev_hold() to prevent an
> > increment if the device is in dismantle phase.
> > Maybe the situation is better nowadays.


>