netdev - Re: [PATCH net] netlabel: fix RCU annotation for IPv4 options on socket creation

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: <CAHC9VhS8ZcJ=R-2Fytp8_cfn9=pJ5w41swZ9FrxPQmvyvhgJ9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 15:45:15 -0400
From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc: Davide Caratti <dcaratti@...hat.com>, xmu@...hat.com, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, 
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] netlabel: fix RCU annotation for IPv4 options on
 socket creation

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 11:57 AM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 5:44 PM Davide Caratti <dcaratti@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Xiumei reports the following splat when netlabel and TCP socket are used:
> >
> >  =============================
> >  WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
> >  6.9.0-rc2+ #637 Not tainted
> >  -----------------------------
> >  net/ipv4/cipso_ipv4.c:1880 suspicious rcu_dereference_protected() usage!
> >
> >  other info that might help us debug this:
> >
> >  rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1
> >  1 lock held by ncat/23333:
> >   #0: ffffffff906030c0 (rcu_read_lock){....}-{1:2}, at: netlbl_sock_setattr+0x25/0x1b0
> >
> >  stack backtrace:
> >  CPU: 11 PID: 23333 Comm: ncat Kdump: loaded Not tainted 6.9.0-rc2+ #637
> >  Hardware name: Supermicro SYS-6027R-72RF/X9DRH-7TF/7F/iTF/iF, BIOS 3.0  07/26/2013
> >  Call Trace:
> >   <TASK>
> >   dump_stack_lvl+0xa9/0xc0
> >   lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0x117/0x190
> >   cipso_v4_sock_setattr+0x1ab/0x1b0
> >   netlbl_sock_setattr+0x13e/0x1b0
> >   selinux_netlbl_socket_post_create+0x3f/0x80
> >   selinux_socket_post_create+0x1a0/0x460
> >   security_socket_post_create+0x42/0x60
> >   __sock_create+0x342/0x3a0
> >   __sys_socket_create.part.22+0x42/0x70
> >   __sys_socket+0x37/0xb0
> >   __x64_sys_socket+0x16/0x20
> >   do_syscall_64+0x96/0x180
> >   ? do_user_addr_fault+0x68d/0xa30
> >   ? exc_page_fault+0x171/0x280
> >   ? asm_exc_page_fault+0x22/0x30
> >   entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x71/0x79
> >  RIP: 0033:0x7fbc0ca3fc1b
> >  Code: 73 01 c3 48 8b 0d 05 f2 1b 00 f7 d8 64 89 01 48 83 c8 ff c3 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 90 f3 0f 1e fa b8 29 00 00 00 0f 05 <48> 3d 01 f0 ff ff 73 01 c3 48 8b 0d d5 f1 1b 00 f7 d8 64 89 01 48
> >  RSP: 002b:00007fff18635208 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000029
> >  RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000001 RCX: 00007fbc0ca3fc1b
> >  RDX: 0000000000000006 RSI: 0000000000000001 RDI: 0000000000000002
> >  RBP: 000055d24f80f8a0 R08: 0000000000000003 R09: 0000000000000001
> >  R10: 0000000000020000 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 000055d24f80f8a0
> >  R13: 0000000000000000 R14: 000055d24f80fb88 R15: 0000000000000000
> >   </TASK>
> >
> > The current implementation of cipso_v4_sock_setattr() replaces IP options
> > under the assumption that the caller holds the socket lock; however, such
> > assumption is not true, nor needed, in selinux_socket_post_create() hook.
> >
> > Using rcu_dereference_check() instead of rcu_dereference_protected() will
> > avoid the reported splat for the netlbl_sock_setattr() case, and preserve
> > the legitimate check when the caller is netlbl_conn_setattr().
> >
> > Fixes: f6d8bd051c39 ("inet: add RCU protection to inet->opt")
> > Reported-by: Xiumei Mu <xmu@...hat.com>
> > Suggested-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Davide Caratti <dcaratti@...hat.com>
> > ---
> >  net/ipv4/cipso_ipv4.c | 6 ++++--
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/ipv4/cipso_ipv4.c b/net/ipv4/cipso_ipv4.c
> > index 8b17d83e5fde..1d0c2a905078 100644
> > --- a/net/ipv4/cipso_ipv4.c
> > +++ b/net/ipv4/cipso_ipv4.c
> > @@ -1876,8 +1876,10 @@ int cipso_v4_sock_setattr(struct sock *sk,
> >
> >         sk_inet = inet_sk(sk);
> >
> > -       old = rcu_dereference_protected(sk_inet->inet_opt,
> > -                                       lockdep_sock_is_held(sk));
> > +       /* caller either holds rcu_read_lock() (on socket creation)
> > +        * or socket lock (in all other cases). */
> > +       old = rcu_dereference_check(sk_inet->inet_opt,
> > +                                   lockdep_sock_is_held(sk));
> >         if (inet_test_bit(IS_ICSK, sk)) {
> >                 sk_conn = inet_csk(sk);
> >                 if (old)
> > --
> > 2.44.0
> >
>
> OK, but rcu_read_lock() being held (incidentally by the caller) here
> is not protecting the write operation,
> so this looks wrong IMO.
>
> Whenever we can not ensure a mutex/spinlock is held, we usually use
> rcu_dereference_protected(XXX, 1),
> and a comment might simply explain the reason we assert it is protected.
>
> (We also could add a new boolean parameter, set to true or false
> depending on the caller)
>
> old = rcu_dereference_protected(sk_inet->inet_opt, from_socket_creation ||
>
>             lockdep_sock_is_held(sk));

Agree with everything Eric said.  I'm okay with the
rcu_deref_prot(XXX, 1) + comment approach, but if you wanted to put in
the work to chase the callers and setup the boolean that would be
great too.

-- 
paul-moore.com