netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net] sfc: Fix use-after-free due to selftest

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]

Message-ID: <a7cb0d9e-7519-f90c-bd58-eab9ee82b3dc@sangfor.com.cn>
Date:   Fri, 14 Apr 2023 19:03:41 +0800
From:   Ding Hui <dinghui@...gfor.com.cn>
To:     davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
        pabeni@...hat.com, ecree.xilinx@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pengdonglin@...gfor.com.cn,
        huangcun@...gfor.com.cn
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net] sfc: Fix use-after-free due to selftest_work

On 2023/4/14 17:44, Martin Habets wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 04:35:08PM +0800, Ding Hui wrote:
>> On 2023/4/13 15:37, Martin Habets wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 08:50:13AM +0800, Ding Hui wrote:
>>>> There is a use-after-free scenario that is:
>>>>
>>>> When netif_running() is false, user set mac address or vlan tag to VF,
>>>> the xxx_set_vf_mac() or xxx_set_vf_vlan() will invoke efx_net_stop()
>>>> and efx_net_open(), since netif_running() is false, the port will not
>>>> start and keep port_enabled false, but selftest_worker is scheduled
>>>> in efx_net_open().
>>>>
>>>> If we remove the device before selftest_worker run, the efx is freed,
>>>> then we will get a UAF in run_timer_softirq() like this:
>>>>
>>>> [ 1178.907941] ==================================================================
>>>> [ 1178.907948] BUG: KASAN: use-after-free in run_timer_softirq+0xdea/0xe90
>>>> [ 1178.907950] Write of size 8 at addr ff11001f449cdc80 by task swapper/47/0
>>>> [ 1178.907950]
>>>> [ 1178.907953] CPU: 47 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/47 Kdump: loaded Tainted: G           O     --------- -t - 4.18.0 #1
>>>> [ 1178.907954] Hardware name: SANGFOR X620G40/WI2HG-208T1061A, BIOS SPYH051032-U01 04/01/2022
>>>> [ 1178.907955] Call Trace:
>>>> [ 1178.907956]  <IRQ>
>>>> [ 1178.907960]  dump_stack+0x71/0xab
>>>> [ 1178.907963]  print_address_description+0x6b/0x290
>>>> [ 1178.907965]  ? run_timer_softirq+0xdea/0xe90
>>>> [ 1178.907967]  kasan_report+0x14a/0x2b0
>>>> [ 1178.907968]  run_timer_softirq+0xdea/0xe90
>>>> [ 1178.907971]  ? init_timer_key+0x170/0x170
>>>> [ 1178.907973]  ? hrtimer_cancel+0x20/0x20
>>>> [ 1178.907976]  ? sched_clock+0x5/0x10
>>>> [ 1178.907978]  ? sched_clock_cpu+0x18/0x170
>>>> [ 1178.907981]  __do_softirq+0x1c8/0x5fa
>>>> [ 1178.907985]  irq_exit+0x213/0x240
>>>> [ 1178.907987]  smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0xd0/0x330
>>>> [ 1178.907989]  apic_timer_interrupt+0xf/0x20
>>>> [ 1178.907990]  </IRQ>
>>>> [ 1178.907991] RIP: 0010:mwait_idle+0xae/0x370
>>>>
>>>> I am thinking about several ways to fix the issue:
>>>>
>>>> [1] In this RFC, I cancel the selftest_worker unconditionally in
>>>> efx_pci_remove().
>>>>
>>>> [2] Add a test condition, only invoke efx_selftest_async_start() when
>>>> efx->port_enabled is true in efx_net_open().
>>>>
>>>> [3] Move invoking efx_selftest_async_start() from efx_net_open() to
>>>> efx_start_all() or efx_start_port(), that matching cancel action in
>>>> efx_stop_port().
>>>
>>> I think moving this to efx_start_port() is best, as you say to match
>>> the cancel in efx_stop_port().
>>>
>>
>> If moving to efx_start_port(), should we worry about that IRQ_TIMEOUT
>> is still enough?
> 
> 1 second is a long time for a machine running code, so it does not worry me.
> 
>> I'm not sure if there is a long time waiting from starting of schedule
>> selftest_work to the ending of efx_net_open().
> 
> I see your point. Looking at efx_start_all() there is the call to
> efx_start_datapath() after the call to efx_net_open(), which takes a
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^
Do you mean efx_start_port()?

> relatively long time (well under 200ms though).
> Logically it would be better to move efx_selftest_async_start() after this
> call. What do you think?

Agree with you.

> The point here is that efx_start_all() calls efx_start_port() early, and
> efx_stop_all() also calls efx_stop_port() early. The calling sequence is
> correct but they are not the strict inverse of each other.
> 

Yeah, that is what I noticed monitor_work does.
Then I'll move efx_selftest_async_start() into efx_start_all(), follows
the monitor_work.

-- 
Thanks,
- Ding Hui