[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y+35uaLd03AqlWdG@lincoln>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2023 10:39:05 +0100
From: Larysa Zaremba <larysa.zaremba@...el.com>
To: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>
CC: <kgraul@...ux.ibm.com>, <wenjia@...ux.ibm.com>,
<jaka@...ux.ibm.com>, <kuba@...nel.org>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] net/smc: fix potential panic dues to unprotected
smc_llc_srv_add_link()
On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 02:37:36PM +0800, D. Wythe wrote:
> From: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>
>
> 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>
Reviewed-by: Larysa Zaremba <larysa.zaremba@...el.com>
> ---
> v2: rebase it with lastest net tree
>
> 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 e12d4fa..d9413d4 100644
> --- a/net/smc/af_smc.c
> +++ b/net/smc/af_smc.c
> @@ -1826,8 +1826,10 @@ 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);
>
> + mutex_lock(&link->lgr->llc_conf_mutex);
> /* initial contact - try to establish second link */
> smc_llc_srv_add_link(link, NULL);
> + mutex_unlock(&link->lgr->llc_conf_mutex);
> return 0;
> }
>
> --
> 1.8.3.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists