netdev - Re: Report mlx5

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, 6 Feb 2024 15:01:53 +0800
From: Tao Liu <taoliu828@....com>
To: saeedm@...dia.com, roid@...dia.com, dchumak@...dia.com,
	vladbu@...dia.com, paulb@...dia.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, taoliu828@....com
Subject: Re: Report mlx5_core crash

On 01/31  , Tao Liu wrote:
> Hi Mellanox team,
> 
>    We hit a crash in mlx5_core which is similar with commit
>    de31854ece17 ("net/mlx5e: Fix nullptr on deleting mirroring rule").
>    But they are different cases, our case is:
>    in_port(...),eth(...) \
> actions:set(tunnel(...)),vxlan_sys_4789,set(tunnel(...)),vxlan_sys_4789,...
> 
>      BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 0000000000000270
>      RIP: 0010:del_sw_hw_rule+0x29/0x190 [mlx5_core]
>      Call Trace:
>       tree_remove_node+0x1a/0x50 [mlx5_core]
>       mlx5_del_flow_rules+0x54/0x170 [mlx5_core]
>       __mlx5_eswitch_del_rule+0x4b/0x190 [mlx5_core]
>       ? __update_load_avg_se+0x29a/0x320
>       mlx5e_tc_rule_unoffload+0x4b/0xc0 [mlx5_core]
>       mlx5e_tc_del_fdb_flow+0x1e2/0x2e0 [mlx5_core]
>       __mlx5e_tc_del_fdb_peer_flow+0xcd/0x100 [mlx5_core]
>       mlx5e_tc_del_flow+0x42/0x220 [mlx5_core]
>       mlx5e_flow_put+0x26/0x60 [mlx5_core]
>       mlx5e_delete_flower+0x25a/0x3a0 [mlx5_core]
>       tc_setup_cb_destroy+0xae/0x170
>       fl_hw_destroy_filter+0x9f/0xc0 [cls_flower]
>       __fl_delete+0x325/0x340 [cls_flower]
>       fl_delete+0x36/0x80 [cls_flower]
>       tc_del_tfilter+0x34d/0x6d0
>       ? tc_get_tfilter+0x450/0x450
>       rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x2de/0x380
>       ? copyout+0x1c/0x30
>       ? rtnl_calcit.isra.39+0x110/0x110
>       netlink_rcv_skb+0x50/0x100
>       netlink_unicast+0x1a5/0x280
>       netlink_sendmsg+0x253/0x4c0
>       ? _copy_from_user+0x26/0x50
>       sock_sendmsg+0x5b/0x60
>       ____sys_sendmsg+0x1ef/0x260
>       ? copy_msghdr_from_user+0x5c/0x90
>       ? ____sys_recvmsg+0xe6/0x170
>       ___sys_sendmsg+0x7c/0xc0
>       ? copy_msghdr_from_user+0x5c/0x90
>       ? inet_ioctl+0x187/0x1d0
>       ? ___sys_recvmsg+0x89/0xc0
>       ? _copy_to_user+0x1c/0x30
>       ? sock_do_ioctl+0xd3/0x150
>       ? __fget_light+0xca/0x110
>       __sys_sendmsg+0x57/0xa0
>       do_syscall_64+0x33/0x40
>       entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
> 
>     As digging into the coredump, there are some data shared:
> 
>       crash> struct mlx5_flow_rule 0xffff88852a158840
>       struct mlx5_flow_rule {
>         node = {
>             list = {
>                   next = 0xffff88852a158fc0,
>                   prev = 0xffff88817d405090
>                 },
>             children = {
>                   next = 0xffff88852a158850,
>                   prev = 0xffff88852a158850
>                 },
>             type = FS_TYPE_FLOW_DEST,
>             parent = 0x0,                 <---------- crash here
>             root = 0x0,
>             ...
>          },
>         dest_attr = {
>             type = MLX5_FLOW_DESTINATION_TYPE_VPORT,
>             {
>                   ...
>                   vport = {
>                           num = 65535,
>                           vhca_id = 1,
>                           pkt_reformat = 0xffff890291911840, <----------
>                           flags = 3 '\003'
>                         },
>                 }
>           },
>       }
> 
>       crash> struct mlx5_flow_handle ffff88805d87ca40
>       struct mlx5_flow_handle {
>         num_rules = 0x6,
>         rule = 0xffff88805d87ca48
>       }
>       crash>
>       crash> x/6xg 0xffff88805d87ca48
>       0xffff88805d87ca48:     0xffff88852a158fc0 0xffff88852a158840
>                                                           ^^^^^^
>       0xffff88805d87ca58:     0xffff8882ee4546c0 0xffff8882ee454e40
>       0xffff88805d87ca68:     0xffff88852a158840 0xffff8882ee455b00
>                                   ^^^^^^
> 
>       crash> struct mlx5_pkt_reformat 0xffff890291911840
>       struct mlx5_pkt_reformat {
>         ns_type = MLX5_FLOW_NAMESPACE_FDB,
>         reformat_type = 0x0,
>         sw_owned = 0x1,
>         {
>             action = {
>               dr_action = 0xffff88fe5d87c700 <----------
>             },
>             id = 0x5d87c700
>           }
>       }
>       crash> struct mlx5_pkt_reformat 0xffff890291911780
>       struct mlx5_pkt_reformat {
>         ns_type = MLX5_FLOW_NAMESPACE_FDB,
>         reformat_type = 0x0,
>         sw_owned = 0x1,
>         {
>             action = {
>               dr_action = 0xffff88805d87c700 <----------
>             },
>             id = 0x5d87c700
>           }
>       }
> 
>    rule->node.parent == NULL in del_sw_hw_rule() triggers kernel core
> directly.
>    But the root cause is dup pointers in handle->rule[], which conducted by
>    wrong judgement of pkt_reformat: pkt_reformat->action.dr_action are
>    different 64 bits pointer with same least 32 bits.
> 
>    add_rule_fg
>      add_rule_fte
>        create_flow_handle
>          find_flow_rule
>            mlx5_flow_dests_cmp
>              d1->vport.pkt_reformat->id == d2->vport.pkt_reformat->id
>      tree_add_node              <---------- called only when node.refcount
> == 1
> 
>   So there are two issues to fix:
>   1. How to deal with dup rules to avoid nullptr in rule->node.parent?
>   2. How to compare pkt_reformat properly?
> 
>   Do you have any ideas to fix these? Looking forward to your response.
> 
> 
> Best regards, Tao

Gentle ping.
I'll appreciate for your advice. 

Best regards,
Tao