netdev - Re: Is xt_owner's owner_mt() racy with sock_orphan()? [worse with new TYPESAFE_BY

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20231206-refinanzieren-werkhalle-22db5334f256@brauner>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2023 14:58:36 +0100
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Cc: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
	Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@...filter.org>,
	Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
	netfilter-devel <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
	coreteam@...filter.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Is xt_owner's owner_mt() racy with sock_orphan()? [worse with
 new TYPESAFE_BY_RCU file lifetime?]

On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 06:08:29PM +0100, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 5:40 PM Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > I think this code is racy, but testing that seems like a pain...
> >
> > owner_mt() in xt_owner runs in context of a NF_INET_LOCAL_OUT or
> > NF_INET_POST_ROUTING hook. It first checks that sk->sk_socket is
> > non-NULL, then checks that sk->sk_socket->file is non-NULL, then
> > accesses the ->f_cred of that file.
> >
> > I don't see anything that protects this against a concurrent
> > sock_orphan(), which NULLs out the sk->sk_socket pointer, if we're in
> 
> Ah, and all the other users of ->sk_socket in net/netfilter/ do it
> under the sk_callback_lock... so I guess the fix would be to add the
> same in owner_mt?

In your other mail you wrote:

> I also think we have no guarantee here that the socket's ->file won't
> go away due to a concurrent __sock_release(), which could cause us to
> continue reading file credentials out of a file whose refcount has
> already dropped to zero?

Is this an independent worry or can the concurrent __sock_release()
issue only happen due to a sock_orphan() having happened first? I think
that it requires a sock_orphan() having happend, presumably because the
socket gets marked SOCK_DEAD and can thus be released via
__sock_release() asynchronously?

If so then taking sk_callback_lock() in owner_mt() should fix this.
(Otherwise we might need an additional get_active_file() on
sk->sk_socker->file in owner_mt() in addition to the other fix.)