netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] net: sched: fix memory leak in tcindex_set

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]

Date:   Tue, 15 Nov 2022 18:44:42 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc:     Hawkins Jiawei <yin31149@...il.com>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, 18801353760@....com,
        syzbot+232ebdbd36706c965ebf@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
        syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com,
        Cong Wang <cong.wang@...edance.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net: sched: fix memory leak in tcindex_set_parms

On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 19:57:10 +0100 Paolo Abeni wrote:
> This code confuses me more than a bit, and I don't follow ?!? 

It's very confusing :S

For starters I don't know when r != old_r. I mean now it triggers
randomly after the RCU-ification, but in the original code when
it was just a memset(). When would old_r ever not be null and yet
point to a different entry?

> it looks like that at this point:
> 
> * the data path could access 'old_r->exts' contents via 'p' just before
> the previous 'tcindex_filter_result_init(old_r, cp, net);' but still
> potentially within the same RCU grace period
> 
> * 'tcindex_filter_result_init(old_r, cp, net);' has 'unlinked' the old
> exts from 'p'  so that will not be freed by later
> tcindex_partial_destroy_work() 
> 
> Overall it looks to me that we need some somewhat wait for the RCU
> grace period, 

Isn't it better to make @cp a deeper copy of @p ?
I thought it already is but we don't seem to be cloning p->h.
Also the cloning of p->perfect looks quite lossy.

> Somewhat side question: it looks like that the 'perfect hashing' usage
> is the root cause of the issue addressed here, and very likely is
> afflicted by other problems, e.g. the data curruption in 'err =
> tcindex_filter_result_init(old_r, cp, net);'.
> 
> AFAICS 'perfect hashing' usage is a sort of optimization that the user-
> space may trigger with some combination of the tcindex arguments. I'm
> wondering if we could drop all perfect hashing related code?

The thought of "how much of this can we delete" did cross my mind :)