[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230426233657.GA11249@bytedance>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2023 16:42:01 -0700
From: Peilin Ye <yepeilin.cs@...il.com>
To: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Cc: Pedro Tammela <pctammela@...atatu.com>,
Seth Forshee <sforshee@...italocean.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
syzbot <syzbot+b53a9c0d1ea4ad62da8b@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, jiri@...nulli.us,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
pabeni@...hat.com, syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com,
xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, peilin.ye@...edance.com,
yepeilin.cs@...il.com, vladbu@...dia.com, hdanton@...a.com
Subject: Re: [syzbot] [net?] KASAN: slab-use-after-free Write in
mini_qdisc_pair_swap
+Cc: Vlad Buslov, Hillf Danton
Hi all,
On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 04:00:11PM -0700, Peilin Ye wrote:
> I also reproduced this UAF using the syzkaller reproducer in the report
> (the C reproducer did not work for me for unknown reasons). I will look
> into this.
Currently, multiple ingress (clsact) Qdiscs can access the per-netdev
*miniq_ingress (*miniq_egress) pointer concurrently. This is
unfortunately true in two senses:
1. We allow adding ingress (clsact) Qdiscs under parents other than
TC_H_INGRESS (TC_H_CLSACT):
$ ip link add ifb0 numtxqueues 8 type ifb
$ echo clsact > /proc/sys/net/core/default_qdisc
$ tc qdisc add dev ifb0 handle 1: root mq
$ tc qdisc show dev ifb0
qdisc mq 1: root
qdisc clsact 0: parent 1:8
qdisc clsact 0: parent 1:7
qdisc clsact 0: parent 1:6
qdisc clsact 0: parent 1:5
qdisc clsact 0: parent 1:4
qdisc clsact 0: parent 1:3
qdisc clsact 0: parent 1:2
qdisc clsact 0: parent 1:1
This is obviously racy and should be prohibited. I've started working
on patches to fix this. The syz repro for this UAF adds ingress Qdiscs
under TC_H_ROOT, by the way.
2. After introducing RTNL-lockless RTM_{NEW,DEL,GET}TFILTER requests
[1], it is possible that, when replacing ingress (clsact) Qdiscs, the
old one can access *miniq_{in,e}gress concurrently with the new one. For
example, the syz repro does something like the following:
Thread 1 creates sch_ingress Qdisc A (containing mini Qdisc a1 and a2),
then adds a cls_flower filter X to Qdisc A.
Thread 2 creates sch_ingress Qdisc B (containing mini Qdisc b1 and b2)
to replace Qdisc A, then adds a cls_flower filter Y to Qdisc B.
Device has 8 TXQs.
Thread 1 A's refcnt Thread 2
RTM_NEWQDISC (A, locked)
qdisc_create(A) 1
qdisc_graft(A) 9
RTM_NEWTFILTER (X, lockless)
__tcf_qdisc_find(A) 10
tcf_chain0_head_change(A)
! mini_qdisc_pair_swap(A)
| RTM_NEWQDISC (B, locked)
| 2 qdisc_graft(B)
| 1 notify_and_destroy(A)
|
| RTM_NEWTFILTER (Y, lockless)
| tcf_chain0_head_change(B)
| ! mini_qdisc_pair_swap(B)
tcf_block_release(A) 0 |
qdisc_destroy(A) |
tcf_chain0_head_change_cb_del(A) |
! mini_qdisc_pair_swap(A) |
| |
... ...
As we can see there're interleaving mini_qdisc_pair_swap() calls between
Qdisc A and B, causing all kinds of troubles, including the UAF (thread
2 writing to mini Qdisc a1's rcu_state after Qdisc A has already been
freed) reported by syzbot.
To fix this, I'm cooking a patch that, when replacing ingress (clsact)
Qdiscs, in qdisc_graft():
I. We should make sure there's no on-the-fly lockless filter requests
for the old Qdisc, and return -EBUSY if there's any (or can/should
we wait in RTM_NEWQDISC handler?)
II. We should destory the old Qdisc before publishing the new one
(i.e. setting it to dev_ingress_queue(dev)->qdisc_sleeping, so
that subsequent filter requests can see it), because
{ingress,clsact}_destroy() also call mini_qdisc_pair_swap(), which
sets *miniq_{in,e}gress to NULL
Future Qdiscs that support RTNL-lockless cls_ops, if any, won't need
this fix, as long as their ->chain_head_change() don't access
out-of-Qdisc-scope data, like pointers in struct net_device.
Do you think this is the right way to go? Thanks!
[1] Thanks Hillf Danton for the hint:
https://syzkaller.appspot.com/text?tag=Patch&x=10d7cd5bc80000
Thanks,
Peilin Ye
Powered by blists - more mailing lists