netdev - Re: [RFC nf-next v3 1/2] netfilter: bpf: support prog update

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: <CAADnVQJZsJujDH=YAoZ6ieQQ2pVo0wvc-ppwRC7y2X=ggibsEw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2023 11:00:49 -0800
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>, Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@...filter.org>, 
	Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, coreteam@...filter.org, 
	netfilter-devel <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, 
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, 
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC nf-next v3 1/2] netfilter: bpf: support prog update

On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 12:20 AM D. Wythe <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Alexei,
>
>
> IMMO, nf_unregister_net_hook does not wait for the completion of the
> execution of the hook that is being removed,
> instead, it allocates a new array without the very hook to replace the
> old arrayvia rcu_assign_pointer() (in __nf_hook_entries_try_shrink),
> then it use call_rcu() to release the old one.
>
> You can find more details in commit
> 8c873e2199700c2de7dbd5eedb9d90d5f109462b.
>
> In other words, when nf_unregister_net_hook returns, there may still be
> contexts executing hooks on the
> old array, which means that the `link` may still be accessed after
> nf_unregister_net_hook returns.
>
> And that's the reason why we use kfree_rcu() to release the `link`.
> >>                                                        nf_hook_run_bpf
> >>                                                        const struct
> >> bpf_nf_link *nf_link = bpf_link;
> >>
> >> bpf_nf_link_release
> >>       nf_unregister_net_hook(nf_link->net, &nf_link->hook_ops);
> >>
> >> bpf_nf_link_dealloc
> >>       free(link)
> >> bpf_prog_run(link->prog);

Got it.
Sounds like it's an existing bug. If so it should be an independent
patch with Fixes tag.

Also please craft a test case to demonstrate UAF.

>
> I must admit that it is indeed feasible if we eliminate the mutex and
> use cmpxchg to swap the prog (we need to ensure that there is only one
> bpf_prog_put() on the old prog).
> However, when cmpxchg fails, it means that this context has not
> outcompeted the other one, and we have to return a failure. Maybe
> something like this:
>
> if (!cmpxchg(&link->prog, old_prog, new_prog)) {
>      /* already replaced by another link_update */
>      return -xxx;
> }
>
> As a comparison, The version with the mutex wouldn't encounter this
> error, every update would succeed. I think that it's too harsh for the
> user to receive a failure
> in that case since they haven't done anything wrong.

Disagree. The mutex doesn't prevent this issue.
There is always a race.
It happens when link_update.old_prog_fd and BPF_F_REPLACE
were specified.
One user space passes an FD of the old prog and
another user space doing the same. They both race and one of them
gets
if (old_prog && link->prog != old_prog) {
               err = -EPERM;

it's no different with dropping the mutex and doing:
if (old_prog) {
    if (!cmpxchg(&link->prog, old_prog, new_prog))
      -EPERM
} else {
   old_prog = xchg(&link->prog, new_prog);
}