netdev - Re: [PATCH net] net: implement lockless setsockopt(SO_PEEK

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: <65d38de7959f9_1f98e529449@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 12:20:39 -0500
From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, 
 Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, 
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, 
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, 
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
 eric.dumazet@...il.com, 
 Daan De Meyer <daan.j.demeyer@...il.com>, 
 Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>, 
 Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...nel.org>, 
 David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: implement lockless setsockopt(SO_PEEK_OFF)

Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 5:07 PM Willem de Bruijn
> <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > syzbot reported a lockdep violation [1] involving af_unix
> > > support of SO_PEEK_OFF.
> > >
> > > Since SO_PEEK_OFF is inherently not thread safe (it uses a per-socket
> > > sk_peek_off field), there is really no point to enforce a pointless
> > > thread safety in the kernel.
> >
> > Would it be sufficient to just move the setsockopt, so that the
> > socket lock is not taken, but iolock still is?
> 
> Probably, if we focus on the lockdep issue rather than the general
> SO_PEEK_OFF mechanism.
> 
> We could remove unix_set_peek_off() in net-next,
> unless someone explains why keeping a locking on iolock is needed.

Since calling SO_PEEK_OFF and recvmsg concurrently is inherently not
thread-safe, fine to remove it all.

All unix_set_peek_off does is an unconditional WRITE_ONCE.

It's just not the smallest change to address this specific report.
+1 on cleaning up more thoroughly in net-next.

> >
> > Agreed with the general principle that this whole interface is not
> > thread safe. So agreed on simplifying. Doubly so for the (lockless)
> > UDP path.
> >
> > sk_peek_offset(), sk_peek_offset_fwd() and sk_peek_offset_bwd() calls
> > currently all take place inside a single iolock critical section. If
> > not taking iolock, perhaps it would be better if sk_peek_off is at
> > least only read once in that critical section, rather than reread
> > in sk_peek_offset_fwd() and sk_peek_offset_bwd()?
> 
> Note that for sk_peek_offset_bwd() operations, there is no prior read
> of sk_peek_off,
> since the caller does not use MSG_PEEK (only UDP does a read in an
> attempt to avoid the lock...)
> 
> static inline int sk_peek_offset(const struct sock *sk, int flags)
> {
>     if (unlikely(flags & MSG_PEEK))
>         return READ_ONCE(sk->sk_peek_off);
> 
>     return 0;
> }

Good point, thanks.

Reviewed-by: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > >
> > > After this patch :
> > >
> > > - setsockopt(SO_PEEK_OFF) no longer acquires the socket lock.
> > >
> > > - skb_consume_udp() no longer has to acquire the socket lock.
> > >
> > > - af_unix no longer needs a special version of sk_set_peek_off(),
> > >   because it does not lock u->iolock anymore.
> > >
> > > As a followup, we could replace prot->set_peek_off to be a boolean
> > > and avoid an indirect call, since we always use sk_set_peek_off().
> >