netdev - Re: [PATCH net] l2tp: Don't sleep and disable BH under writer-side sk_callback

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:   Mon, 21 Nov 2022 22:55:44 +0100
From:   Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>
To:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Tom Parkin <tparkin@...alix.com>,
        syzbot+703d9e154b3b58277261@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
        syzbot+50680ced9e98a61f7698@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
        syzbot+de987172bb74a381879b@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] l2tp: Don't sleep and disable BH under writer-side
 sk_callback_lock

On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 07:03 PM +09, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2022/11/21 18:00, Jakub Sitnicki wrote:
>>> Is it safe to temporarily set a dummy pointer like below?
>>> If it is not safe, what makes assignments done by
>>> setup_udp_tunnel_sock() safe?
>> 
>> Yes, I think so. Great idea. I've used it in v2.
>
> So, you are sure that e.g.
>
> 	udp_sk(sk)->gro_receive = cfg->gro_receive;
>
> in setup_udp_tunnel_sock() (where the caller is passing cfg->gro_receive == NULL)
> never races with e.g. below check (because the socket might be sending/receiving
> in progress since the socket is retrieved via user-specified file descriptor) ?
>
> Then, v2 patch would be OK for fixing this regression. (But I think we still should
> avoid retrieving a socket from user-specified file descriptor in order to avoid
> lockdep race window.)
>
>
> struct sk_buff *udp_gro_receive(struct list_head *head, struct sk_buff *skb,
>                                 struct udphdr *uh, struct sock *sk)
> {
> 	(...snipped...)
>         if (!sk || !udp_sk(sk)->gro_receive) {
> 		(...snipped...)
>                 /* no GRO, be sure flush the current packet */
>                 goto out;
>         }
> 	(...snipped...)
>         pp = call_gro_receive_sk(udp_sk(sk)->gro_receive, sk, head, skb);
> out:
>         skb_gro_flush_final(skb, pp, flush);
>         return pp;
> }
>

First, let me say, that I get the impression that setup_udp_tunnel_sock
was not really meant to be used on pre-existing sockets created by
user-space. Even though l2tp and gtp seem to be doing that.

That is because, I don't see how it could be used properly. Given that
we need to check-and-set sk_user_data under sk_callback_lock, which
setup_udp_tunnel_sock doesn't grab itself. At the same time it might
sleep. There is no way to apply it without resorting to tricks, like we
did here.

So - yeah - there may be other problems. But if there are, they are not
related to the faulty commit b68777d54fac ("l2tp: Serialize access to
sk_user_data with sk_callback_lock"), which we're trying to fix. There
was no locking present in l2tp_tunnel_register before that point.

>> 
>> We can check & assign sk_user_data under sk_callback_lock, and then just
>> let setup_udp_tunnel_sock overwrite it with the same value, without
>> holding the lock.
>
> Given that sk_user_data is RCU-protected on reader-side, don't we need to
> wait for RCU grace period after resetting to NULL?

Who would be the reader?

If you have l2tp_udp_encap_recv in mind - the encap_rcv callback has not
been set yet, if we are on the error handling path in
l2tp_tunnel_register.

In general, though, yes - I think you are right. We must synchronize_rcu
before we kfree the tunnel.

However, that is also not related to the race to check-and-set
sk_user_data, which commit b68777d54fac is trying to fix.