netdev - Re: [PATCH rdma-next v1 2/3] RDMA/mlx5: Handling dct common resource destruction upon firmware failure

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZBmav4CF1yqRvyzZ@nvidia.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 Mar 2023 08:53:35 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc:     Patrisious Haddad <phaddad@...dia.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH rdma-next v1 2/3] RDMA/mlx5: Handling dct common resource
 destruction upon firmware failure

On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 09:54:58AM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 04:18:14PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 03:39:27PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > From: Patrisious Haddad <phaddad@...dia.com>
> > > 
> > > Previously when destroying a DCT, if the firmware function for the
> > > destruction failed, the common resource would have been destroyed
> > > either way, since it was destroyed before the firmware object.
> > > Which leads to kernel warning "refcount_t: underflow" which indicates
> > > possible use-after-free.
> > > Which is triggered when we try to destroy the common resource for the
> > > second time and execute refcount_dec_and_test(&common->refcount).
> > > 
> > > So, currently before destroying the common resource we check its
> > > refcount and continue with the destruction only if it isn't zero.
> > 
> > This seems super sketchy
> > 
> > If the destruction fails why not set the refcount back to 1?
> 
> Because destruction will fail in destroy_rq_tracked() which is after
> destroy_resource_common().
> 
> In first destruction attempt, we delete qp from radix tree and wait for all
> reference to drop. In order do not undo all this logic (setting 1 alone is
> not enough), it is much safer simply skip destroy_resource_common() in reentry
> case.

This is the bug I pointed a long time ago, it is ordered wrong to
remove restrack before destruction is assured

Jason