netdev - Re: [PATCH net v6 09/10] ip6mr: Lock RCU before ip6mr_get_table() call in ip6mr_rtm

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: <20241018115231.GB28324@breakpoint.cc>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2024 13:52:31 +0200
From: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To: Stefan Wiehler <stefan.wiehler@...ia.com>
Cc: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
	"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v6 09/10] ip6mr: Lock RCU before ip6mr_get_table()
 call in ip6mr_rtm_getroute()

Stefan Wiehler <stefan.wiehler@...ia.com> wrote:
> >> When IPV6_MROUTE_MULTIPLE_TABLES is enabled, multicast routing tables
> >> must be read under RCU or RTNL lock.
> >>
> >> Fixes: d1db275dd3f6 ("ipv6: ip6mr: support multiple tables")
> >> Signed-off-by: Stefan Wiehler <stefan.wiehler@...ia.com>
> >> ---
> >>  net/ipv6/ip6mr.c | 10 +++++++---
> >>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/net/ipv6/ip6mr.c b/net/ipv6/ip6mr.c
> >> index b169b27de7e1..39aac81a30f1 100644
> >> --- a/net/ipv6/ip6mr.c
> >> +++ b/net/ipv6/ip6mr.c
> >> @@ -2633,27 +2633,31 @@ static int ip6mr_rtm_getroute(struct sk_buff *in_skb, struct nlmsghdr *nlh,
> >>               grp = nla_get_in6_addr(tb[RTA_DST]);
> >>       tableid = tb[RTA_TABLE] ? nla_get_u32(tb[RTA_TABLE]) : 0;
> >>
> >> +     rcu_read_lock();
> > 
> > AFAICS ip6mr_rtm_getroute() runs with RTNL held, so I don't see
> > why this patch is needed.
> 
> That's true, but it's called neither with RCU nor RTNL lock when
> RTNL_FLAG_DOIT_UNLOCKED is set in rtnetlink_rcv_msg():

Sure, but RTNL_FLAG_DOIT_UNLOCKED is not set for this function:

        err = rtnl_register_module(THIS_MODULE, RTNL_FAMILY_IP6MR, RTM_GETROUTE,
                                   ip6mr_rtm_getroute, ip6mr_rtm_dumproute, 0);

(0 == flag field).  So RNTL is held.  Would of course be nice to convert it to RCU
eventually but thats an enhancement, not a bug fix, so this must be in
separate changesets, targetting net and net-next, respectively.

> I realized now that I completely misunderstood how ip6mr_rtm_dumproute() gets
> called - it should be still safe though because mpls_netconf_dump_devconf() and
> getaddr_dumpit() hold the RCU lock while mpls_dump_routes() asserts that the
> RTNL lock is held. Is that observation correct?

{THIS_MODULE, PF_PHONET, RTM_GETADDR, NULL, getaddr_dumpit, 0},
{THIS_MODULE, PF_MPLS, RTM_GETROUTE, mpls_getroute, mpls_dump_routes, 0},

Both get called with RTNL mutex held, but not within an RCU read side
section.

but:
{THIS_MODULE, PF_MPLS, RTM_GETNETCONF, [..] mpls_netconf_dump_devconf,
       	RTNL_FLAG_DUMP_UNLOCKED}, // == no RTNL held

Means: dump callback is invoked without RTNL mutex.  Those functions
are also called without and RCU read-side section.

Both the get (doit) and the dumper function callbacks need to
explicitly opt-in for RTNL-less invocation at register time.