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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20230508173959.52607-1-kuniyu@amazon.com> Date: Mon, 8 May 2023 10:39:59 -0700 From: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com> To: <edumazet@...gle.com> CC: <davem@...emloft.net>, <kuba@...nel.org>, <kuni1840@...il.com>, <kuniyu@...zon.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <pabeni@...hat.com>, <syzkaller@...glegroups.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net] net: Fix sk->sk_stamp race in sock_recv_cmsgs(). From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> Date: Mon, 8 May 2023 19:31:12 +0200 > On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 7:20 PM Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com> wrote: > > > > From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> > > Date: Mon, 8 May 2023 19:08:58 +0200 > > > On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 6:58 PM Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > KCSAN found a data race in sock_recv_cmsgs() [0] where the read access > > > > to sk->sk_stamp needs READ_ONCE(). > > > > > > > > Also, there is another race like below. If the torn load of the high > > > > 32-bits precedes WRITE_ONCE(sk, skb->tstamp) and later the written > > > > lower 32-bits happens to match with SK_DEFAULT_STAMP, the final result > > > > of sk->sk_stamp could be 0. > > > > > > > > sock_recv_cmsgs() ioctl(SIOCGSTAMP) sock_recv_cmsgs() > > > > | | | > > > > |- if (sock_flag(sk, SOCK_TIMESTAMP)) | > > > > | | | > > > > | `- sock_set_flag(sk, SOCK_TIMESTAMP) > > > > | | > > > > | `- if (sock_flag(sk, SOCK_TIMESTAMP)) > > > > `- if (sk->sk_stamp == SK_DEFAULT_STAMP) `- sock_write_timestamp(sk, skb->tstamp) > > > > `- sock_write_timestamp(sk, 0) > > > > > > > > Even with READ_ONCE(), we could get the same result if READ_ONCE() precedes > > > > WRITE_ONCE() because the SK_DEFAULT_STAMP check and WRITE_ONCE(sk_stamp, 0) > > > > are not atomic. > > > > > > > > Let's avoid the race by cmpxchg() on 64-bits architecture or seqlock on > > > > 32-bits machines. > > > > > > > > > > I disagree. Please use WRITE_ONCE(), even if we know it is racy on 32bit. > > > > > > sock_read_timestamp() and sock_write_timestamp() already are racy, and > > > we do not care. > > > > I think it's not racy since commit 3a0ed3e96197 ("sock: Make sock->sk_stamp > > thread-safe"), which introduced seqlock in sock_read_timestamp() and > > sock_write_timestamp(). > > Please note I do not care of 32bit. > > It is definitely racy on 64bit. > > Please look at > > commit f75359f3ac855940c5718af10ba089b8977bf339 > Author: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> > Date: Mon Nov 4 21:38:43 2019 -0800 > > net: prevent load/store tearing on sk->sk_stamp > > > We can not use cmpxchg() only in one place and not the others. Ah, I understand. I'll post v3 with this diff to silence KCSAN. ---8<--- diff --git a/include/net/sock.h b/include/net/sock.h index 8b7ed7167243..656ea89f60ff 100644 --- a/include/net/sock.h +++ b/include/net/sock.h @@ -2718,7 +2718,7 @@ static inline void sock_recv_cmsgs(struct msghdr *msg, struct sock *sk, __sock_recv_cmsgs(msg, sk, skb); else if (unlikely(sock_flag(sk, SOCK_TIMESTAMP))) sock_write_timestamp(sk, skb->tstamp); - else if (unlikely(sk->sk_stamp == SK_DEFAULT_STAMP)) + else if (unlikely(sock_read_timestamp(sk) == SK_DEFAULT_STAMP)) sock_write_timestamp(sk, 0); } ---8<--- Thank you! > > cmpxchg() is expensive, we do not want it here on our fast path. > > Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists