Message-ID: <20e9ea01-1261-6d03-34c9-9b842298487a@huawei.com>
Date:   Thu, 27 Oct 2022 19:58:21 +0800
From:   shaozhengchao <shaozhengchao@...wei.com>
To:     Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
CC:     <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <davem@...emloft.net>, <edumazet@...gle.com>, <kuba@...nel.org>,
        <pabeni@...hat.com>, <ast@...nel.org>, <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        <andrii@...nel.org>, <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, <song@...nel.org>,
        <yhs@...com>, <john.fastabend@...il.com>, <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
        <haoluo@...gle.com>, <jolsa@...nel.org>, <oss@....io>,
        <weiyongjun1@...wei.com>, <yuehaibing@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: fix issue that packet only contains l2 is
 dropped



On 2022/10/25 1:13, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2022 at 4:36 AM shaozhengchao <shaozhengchao@...wei.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2022/10/22 2:16, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 12:25 AM shaozhengchao <shaozhengchao@...wei.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2022/10/21 1:45, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 6:47 PM shaozhengchao <shaozhengchao@...wei.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2022/10/18 0:36, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 15, 2022 at 2:16 AM Zhengchao Shao <shaozhengchao@...wei.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As [0] see, bpf_prog_test_run_skb() should allow user space to forward
>>>>>>>> 14-bytes packet via BPF_PROG_RUN instead of dropping packet directly.
>>>>>>>> So fix it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 0: https://github.com/cilium/ebpf/commit/a38fb6b5a46ab3b5639ea4d421232a10013596c0
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fixes: fd1894224407 ("bpf: Don't redirect packets with invalid pkt_len")
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Zhengchao Shao <shaozhengchao@...wei.com>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>      net/bpf/test_run.c | 6 +++---
>>>>>>>>      1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/net/bpf/test_run.c b/net/bpf/test_run.c
>>>>>>>> index 13d578ce2a09..aa1b49f19ca3 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/net/bpf/test_run.c
>>>>>>>> +++ b/net/bpf/test_run.c
>>>>>>>> @@ -979,9 +979,6 @@ static int convert___skb_to_skb(struct sk_buff *skb, struct __sk_buff *__skb)
>>>>>>>>      {
>>>>>>>>             struct qdisc_skb_cb *cb = (struct qdisc_skb_cb *)skb->cb;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -       if (!skb->len)
>>>>>>>> -               return -EINVAL;
>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>             if (!__skb)
>>>>>>>>                     return 0;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> @@ -1102,6 +1099,9 @@ int bpf_prog_test_run_skb(struct bpf_prog *prog, const union bpf_attr *kattr,
>>>>>>>>             if (IS_ERR(data))
>>>>>>>>                     return PTR_ERR(data);
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +       if (size == ETH_HLEN)
>>>>>>>> +               is_l2 = true;
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't think this will work? That is_l2 is there to expose proper l2/l3
>>>>>>> skb for specific hooks; we can't suddenly start exposing l2 headers to
>>>>>>> the hooks that don't expect it.
>>>>>>> Does it make sense to start with a small reproducer that triggers the
>>>>>>> issue first? We can have a couple of cases for
>>>>>>> len=0/ETH_HLEN-1/ETH_HLEN+1 and trigger them from the bpf program that
>>>>>>> redirects to different devices (to trigger dev_is_mac_header_xmit).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Stanislav:
>>>>>>            Thank you for your review. Is_l2 is the flag of a specific
>>>>>> hook. Therefore, do you mean that if skb->len is equal to 0, just
>>>>>> add the length back?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not sure I understand your question. All I'm saying is - you can't
>>>>> flip that flag arbitrarily. This flag depends on the attach point that
>>>>> you're running the prog against. Some attach points expect packets
>>>>> with l2, some expect packets without l2.
>>>>>
>>>>> What about starting with a small reproducer? Does it make sense to
>>>>> create a small selftest that adds net namespace + fq_codel +
>>>>> bpf_prog_test run and do redirect ingress/egress with len
>>>>> 0/1...tcphdr? Because I'm not sure I 100% understand whether it's only
>>>>> len=0 that's problematic or some other combination as well?
>>>>>
>>>> yes, only skb->len = 0 will cause null-ptr-deref issue.
>>>> The following is the process of triggering the problem:
>>>> enqueue a skb:
>>>> fq_codel_enqueue()
>>>>           ...
>>>>           idx = fq_codel_classify()        --->if idx != 0
>>>>           flow = &q->flows[idx];
>>>>           flow_queue_add(flow, skb);       --->add skb to flow[idex]
>>>>           q->backlogs[idx] += qdisc_pkt_len(skb); --->backlogs = 0
>>>>           ...
>>>>           fq_codel_drop()                  --->set sch->limit = 0, always
>>>> drop packets
>>>>                   ...
>>>>                   idx = i                  --->becuase backlogs in every
>>>> flows is 0, so idx = 0
>>>>                   ...
>>>>                   flow = &q->flows[idx];   --->get idx=0 flow
>>>>                   ...
>>>>                   dequeue_head()
>>>>                           skb = flow->head; --->flow->head = NULL
>>>>                           flow->head = skb->next; --->cause null-ptr-deref
>>>> So, if skb->len !=0，fq_codel_drop() could get the correct idx, and
>>>> then skb!=NULL, it will be OK.
>>>> Maybe, I will fix it in fq_codel.
>>>
>>> I think the consensus here is that the stack, in general, doesn't
>>> expect the packets like this. So there are probably more broken things
>>> besides fq_codel. Thus, it's better if we remove the ability to
>>> generate them from the bpf side instead of fixing the individual users
>>> like fq_codel.
>>>
>>>> But, as I know, skb->len = 0 is just invalid packet. I prefer to add the
>>>> length back, like bellow:
>>>>           if (is_l2 || !skb->len)
>>>>                   __skb_push(skb, hh_len);
>>>> is it OK?
>>>
>>> Probably not?
>>>
>>> Looking at the original syzkaller report, prog_type is
>>> BPF_PROG_TYPE_LWT_XMIT which does expect a packet without l2 header.
>>> Can we do something like:
>>>
>>> if (!is_l2 && !skb->len) {
>>>     // append some dummy byte to the skb ?
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>> I pad one byte, and test OK.
>> if (!is_l2 && !skb->len)
>>       __skb_push(skb, 1);
>>
>> Does it look OK to you?
> 
> Nope, this will eat a byte out of the l2 header. We need to skb_put
> and make sure we allocate enough to make that skb_put succeed.
> 
> But stepping back a bit: it feels like it's all unnecessary? The only
> valid use-case of this is probing for the BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN as cilium
> does. This is mostly about testing, so fixing it in the users seems
> fair? No real production code is expected to generate these zero-len
> packets. Or are we concerned that this will leak into stable kernels?
> 
> I feel like we are trying to add more complexity here for no apparent reason.
> 
I agree with you. users should make sure the correct skb len and
configurations are passed into kernel. Incorrect configurations should
be discarded to ensure kernel stability.

Lorenz, Can you modify the user-mode test code?

Zhengchao Shao

Powered by blists - more mailing lists