netdev - Re: [PATCH net 2/2] virtio_net: fix missing lock protection on control

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: Wed, 29 May 2024 10:02:18 +0800
From: Heng Qi <hengqi@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 virtualization@...ts.linux.dev,
 Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
 Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com>,
 Eugenio Pérez <eperezma@...hat.com>,
 "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
 Daniel Jurgens <danielj@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 2/2] virtio_net: fix missing lock protection on control_buf access

On Tue, 28 May 2024 12:45:32 -0400, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 12:01:45AM +0800, Heng Qi wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 May 2024 11:46:28 -0400, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 03:52:26PM +0800, Heng Qi wrote:
> > > > Refactored the handling of control_buf to be within the cvq_lock
> > > > critical section, mitigating race conditions between reading device
> > > > responses and new command submissions.
> > > > 
> > > > Fixes: 6f45ab3e0409 ("virtio_net: Add a lock for the command VQ.")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Heng Qi <hengqi@...ux.alibaba.com>
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I don't get what does this change. status can change immediately
> > > after you drop the mutex, can it not? what exactly is the
> > > race conditions you are worried about?
> > 
> > See the following case:
> > 
> > 1. Command A is acknowledged and successfully executed by the device.
> > 2. After releasing the mutex (mutex_unlock), process P1 gets preempted before
> >    it can read vi->ctrl->status, *which should be VIRTIO_NET_OK*.
> > 3. A new command B (like the DIM command) is issued.
> > 4. Post vi->ctrl->status being set to VIRTIO_NET_ERR by
> >    virtnet_send_command_reply(), process P2 gets preempted.
> > 5. Process P1 resumes, reads *vi->ctrl->status as VIRTIO_NET_ERR*, and reports
> >    this error back for Command A. <-- Race causes incorrect results to be read.
> > 
> > Thanks.
> 
> 
> Why is it important that P1 gets VIRTIO_NET_OK?
> After all it is no longer the state.

The driver needs to know whether the command actually executed success.

Thanks.

> 
> > > 
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 4 +++-
> > > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> > > > index 6b0512a628e0..3d8407d9e3d2 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> > > > @@ -2686,6 +2686,7 @@ static bool virtnet_send_command_reply(struct virtnet_info *vi, u8 class, u8 cmd
> > > >  {
> > > >  	struct scatterlist *sgs[5], hdr, stat;
> > > >  	u32 out_num = 0, tmp, in_num = 0;
> > > > +	bool ret;
> > > >  	int err;
> > > >  
> > > >  	/* Caller should know better */
> > > > @@ -2731,8 +2732,9 @@ static bool virtnet_send_command_reply(struct virtnet_info *vi, u8 class, u8 cmd
> > > >  	}
> > > >  
> > > >  unlock:
> > > > +	ret = vi->ctrl->status == VIRTIO_NET_OK;
> > > >  	mutex_unlock(&vi->cvq_lock);
> > > > -	return vi->ctrl->status == VIRTIO_NET_OK;
> > > > +	return ret;
> > > >  }
> > > >  
> > > >  static bool virtnet_send_command(struct virtnet_info *vi, u8 class, u8 cmd,
> > > > -- 
> > > > 2.32.0.3.g01195cf9f
> > > 
>