netdev - Re: [RFC] Questionable RCU/BH usage in cgw_create

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]

Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2023 17:14:01 +0100
From: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
 Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
Cc: linux-can@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Questionable RCU/BH usage in cgw_create_job().

Hi Sebastian,

thanks for the review!

On 31.10.23 12:23, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I stumbled over this piece in cgw_create_job():
> |      /* update modifications with disabled softirq & quit */
> |      local_bh_disable();
> |      memcpy(&gwj->mod, &mod, sizeof(mod));
> |      local_bh_enable();
> |      return 0;
> 
> unfortunately the comment did not provide much enlightenment for me.
> Let's look. That memcpy() overwrites struct cf_mod within struct cgw_job
> which is under RCU protection. memcpy() and RCU hardly works as a combo.
> But why the local_bh_disable()?

The content of gwj->mod can be overwritten with new modification rules 
at runtime. But this update (with memcpy) has to take place when there 
is no incoming network traffic.

> Let's look further. The user of this data structure is can_can_gw_rcv().
> There is something like:
> |                 /* check for checksum updates */
> |                 if (gwj->mod.csumfunc.crc8)
> |                         (*gwj->mod.csumfunc.crc8)(cf, &gwj->mod.csum.crc8);
> 
> With optimisation enabled (as in -O2 or so) the compiler will fetch
> mod.csumfunc.crc8, do the comparison and if non-NULL use the previously
> fetched value and jump there. So one could argue that it is not really
> affected by the memcpy() suddenly setting it to NULL. However, adding
> any kind of a function in between, say
> |                 /* check for checksum updates */
> |                 if (gwj->mod.csumfunc.crc8) {
> |+                        trace_event_crc8_sth(cf)
> |                         (*gwj->mod.csumfunc.crc8)(cf, &gwj->mod.csum.crc8);
> |                 }
> 
> will force the compiler to reload mod.csumfunc.crc8. And here is the
> possible NULL pointer if overwritten by update in cgw_create_job().
> 
> One reload that already happens is the one of mod.modfunc. First at the
> top we have:
> |         if (gwj->mod.modfunc[0])
> |                 nskb = skb_copy(skb, GFP_ATOMIC);
> |         else
> |                 nskb = skb_clone(skb, GFP_ATOMIC);
> 
> Here mod.modfunc[0] is NULL and skb_clone() is invoked. Later if
> mod.modfunc has been set to non-NULL value this piece
> |         while (modidx < MAX_MODFUNCTIONS && gwj->mod.modfunc[modidx])
> |                 (*gwj->mod.modfunc[modidx++])(cf, &gwj->mod);
> 
> reloads mod.modfunc and may modify the skb assuming that skb_copy() has
> been used earlier.
> 
> Looking at this makes me think that the local_bh_disable() has been
> added to the memcpy() just to ensure that can_can_gw_rcv() won't run
> because it is invoked in a BH disabled context. Clever little trick that
> is. But this trick is limited to UP environments…
> 
> Am I missing something?
> 
> If not, my suggestion would be replacing the bh-off, memcpy part with:
> |		old_mod = rcu_replace_pointer(gwj->mod, new_mod, true);
> |		kfree_rcu_mightsleep(old_mod);
> 
> and doing the needed pointer replacement with for struct cgw_job::mod
> and RCU annotation.

Replacing a pointer does not copy any data to the cf_mod structure, right?

Best regards,
Oliver