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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <674013002efbc6461b8086b4b861fb7baba879b0.1661407821.git.alibuda@linux.alibaba.com> Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2022 17:51:36 +0800 From: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com> To: kgraul@...ux.ibm.com, wenjia@...ux.ibm.com Cc: kuba@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, "D. Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com> Subject: [PATCH net-next v2 09/10] net/smc: Fix potential panic dues to unprotected smc_llc_srv_add_link() From: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com> After we optimize the parallel capability of SMC-R connection establish, there is a certain chance to trigger the following panic: PID: 5900 TASK: ffff88c1c8af4100 CPU: 1 COMMAND: "kworker/1:48" #0 [ffff9456c1cc79a0] machine_kexec at ffffffff870665b7 #1 [ffff9456c1cc79f0] __crash_kexec at ffffffff871b4c7a #2 [ffff9456c1cc7ab0] crash_kexec at ffffffff871b5b60 #3 [ffff9456c1cc7ac0] oops_end at ffffffff87026ce7 #4 [ffff9456c1cc7ae0] page_fault_oops at ffffffff87075715 #5 [ffff9456c1cc7b58] exc_page_fault at ffffffff87ad0654 #6 [ffff9456c1cc7b80] asm_exc_page_fault at ffffffff87c00b62 [exception RIP: ib_alloc_mr+19] RIP: ffffffffc0c9cce3 RSP: ffff9456c1cc7c38 RFLAGS: 00010202 RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000002 RCX: 0000000000000004 RDX: 0000000000000010 RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: 0000000000000000 RBP: ffff88c1ea281d00 R8: 000000020a34ffff R9: ffff88c1350bbb20 R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000001 R12: 0000000000000000 R13: 0000000000000010 R14: ffff88c1ab040a50 R15: ffff88c1ea281d00 ORIG_RAX: ffffffffffffffff CS: 0010 SS: 0018 #7 [ffff9456c1cc7c60] smc_ib_get_memory_region at ffffffffc0aff6df [smc] #8 [ffff9456c1cc7c88] smcr_buf_map_link at ffffffffc0b0278c [smc] #9 [ffff9456c1cc7ce0] __smc_buf_create at ffffffffc0b03586 [smc] The reason here is that when the server tries to create a second link, smc_llc_srv_add_link() has no protection and may add a new link to link group. This breaks the security environment protected by llc_conf_mutex. Fixes: 2d2209f20189 ("net/smc: first part of add link processing as SMC server") Signed-off-by: D. Wythe <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com> --- net/smc/af_smc.c | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) diff --git a/net/smc/af_smc.c b/net/smc/af_smc.c index e865f5e..763601e 100644 --- a/net/smc/af_smc.c +++ b/net/smc/af_smc.c @@ -1834,8 +1834,10 @@ static int smcr_serv_conf_first_link(struct smc_sock *smc) smc_llc_link_active(link); smcr_lgr_set_type(link->lgr, SMC_LGR_SINGLE); + down_write(&link->lgr->llc_conf_mutex); /* initial contact - try to establish second link */ smc_llc_srv_add_link(link, NULL); + up_write(&link->lgr->llc_conf_mutex); return 0; } -- 1.8.3.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists