netdev - Re: [PATCH net v3] can: raw: fix receiver memory leak

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: <3566e594-a9e5-8ba4-0f5a-d50086cebd82@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2023 15:49:21 +0800
From: "Ziyang Xuan (William)" <william.xuanziyang@...wei.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
CC: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>, <socketcan@...tkopp.net>,
	<davem@...emloft.net>, <kuba@...nel.org>, <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	<linux-can@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v3] can: raw: fix receiver memory leak



在 2023/7/19 13:04, Eric Dumazet 写道:
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 6:41 AM Ziyang Xuan (William)
> <william.xuanziyang@...wei.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 9:27 AM Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 11.07.2023 09:17:37, Ziyang Xuan wrote:
>>>>> Got kmemleak errors with the following ltp can_filter testcase:
>>>>>
>>>>> for ((i=1; i<=100; i++))
>>>>> do
>>>>>         ./can_filter &
>>>>>         sleep 0.1
>>>>> done
>>>>>
>>>>> ==============================================================
>>>>> [<00000000db4a4943>] can_rx_register+0x147/0x360 [can]
>>>>> [<00000000a289549d>] raw_setsockopt+0x5ef/0x853 [can_raw]
>>>>> [<000000006d3d9ebd>] __sys_setsockopt+0x173/0x2c0
>>>>> [<00000000407dbfec>] __x64_sys_setsockopt+0x61/0x70
>>>>> [<00000000fd468496>] do_syscall_64+0x33/0x40
>>>>> [<00000000b7e47d51>] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x61/0xc6
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a bug in the concurrent scenario of unregister_netdevice_many()
>>>>> and raw_release() as following:
>>>>>
>>>>>              cpu0                                        cpu1
>>>>> unregister_netdevice_many(can_dev)
>>>>>   unlist_netdevice(can_dev) // dev_get_by_index() return NULL after this
>>>>>   net_set_todo(can_dev)
>>>>>                                               raw_release(can_socket)
>>>>>                                                 dev = dev_get_by_index(, ro->ifindex); // dev == NULL
>>>>>                                                 if (dev) { // receivers in dev_rcv_lists not free because dev is NULL
>>>>>                                                   raw_disable_allfilters(, dev, );
>>>>>                                                   dev_put(dev);
>>>>>                                                 }
>>>>>                                                 ...
>>>>>                                                 ro->bound = 0;
>>>>>                                                 ...
>>>>>
>>>>> call_netdevice_notifiers(NETDEV_UNREGISTER, )
>>>>>   raw_notify(, NETDEV_UNREGISTER, )
>>>>>     if (ro->bound) // invalid because ro->bound has been set 0
>>>>>       raw_disable_allfilters(, dev, ); // receivers in dev_rcv_lists will never be freed
>>>>>
>>>>> Add a net_device pointer member in struct raw_sock to record bound can_dev,
>>>>> and use rtnl_lock to serialize raw_socket members between raw_bind(), raw_release(),
>>>>> raw_setsockopt() and raw_notify(). Use ro->dev to decide whether to free receivers in
>>>>> dev_rcv_lists.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes: 8d0caedb7596 ("can: bcm/raw/isotp: use per module netdevice notifier")
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ziyang Xuan <william.xuanziyang@...wei.com>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
>>>>> Acked-by: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
>>>>
>>>> Added to linux-can/testing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This patch causes three syzbot LOCKDEP reports so far.
>>
>> Hello Eric,
>>
>> Is there reproducer? I want to understand the specific root cause.
>>
> 
> No repro yet, but simply look at other functions in net/can/raw.c
> 
> You must always take locks in the same order.
> 
> raw_bind(), raw_setsockopt() use:
> 
> rtnl_lock();
> lock_sock(sk);
> 
> Therefore, raw_release() must _also_ use the same order, or risk deadlock.
> 
> Please build a LOCKDEP enabled kernel, and run your tests ?

I know now. This needs raw_bind() and raw_setsockopt() concurrent with raw_release().
And there is not the scenario in my current testcase. I did not get it. I will try to
reproduce it and add the testcase.

Thank you for your patient explanation.

William Xuan.
> .
>