netdev - Re: [PATCH net] sctp: add mutual exclusion in proc_sctp_do_udp

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: <CANn89i+xpmBDQBPPG_QDfACHL=8h5=1bKqJjvD+e4=SHU7t76A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:11:38 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, 
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	eric.dumazet@...il.com, syzbot+fae49d997eb56fa7c74d@...kaller.appspotmail.com, 
	Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] sctp: add mutual exclusion in proc_sctp_do_udp_port()

On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 5:54 PM Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 5:15 AM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > We must serialize calls to sctp_udp_sock_stop() and sctp_udp_sock_start()
> > or risk a crash as syzbot reported:
> >
> > Oops: general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0xdffffc000000000d: 0000 [#1] SMP KASAN PTI
> > KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x0000000000000068-0x000000000000006f]
> > CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 6551 Comm: syz.1.44 Not tainted 6.14.0-syzkaller-g7f2ff7b62617 #0 PREEMPT(full)
> > Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 02/12/2025
> >  RIP: 0010:kernel_sock_shutdown+0x47/0x70 net/socket.c:3653
> > Call Trace:
> >  <TASK>
> >   udp_tunnel_sock_release+0x68/0x80 net/ipv4/udp_tunnel_core.c:181
> >   sctp_udp_sock_stop+0x71/0x160 net/sctp/protocol.c:930
> >   proc_sctp_do_udp_port+0x264/0x450 net/sctp/sysctl.c:553
> >   proc_sys_call_handler+0x3d0/0x5b0 fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c:601
> >   iter_file_splice_write+0x91c/0x1150 fs/splice.c:738
> >   do_splice_from fs/splice.c:935 [inline]
> >   direct_splice_actor+0x18f/0x6c0 fs/splice.c:1158
> >   splice_direct_to_actor+0x342/0xa30 fs/splice.c:1102
> >   do_splice_direct_actor fs/splice.c:1201 [inline]
> >   do_splice_direct+0x174/0x240 fs/splice.c:1227
> >   do_sendfile+0xafd/0xe50 fs/read_write.c:1368
> >   __do_sys_sendfile64 fs/read_write.c:1429 [inline]
> >   __se_sys_sendfile64 fs/read_write.c:1415 [inline]
> >   __x64_sys_sendfile64+0x1d8/0x220 fs/read_write.c:1415
> >   do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:63 [inline]
> >
> > Fixes: 046c052b475e ("sctp: enable udp tunneling socks")
> > Reported-by: syzbot+fae49d997eb56fa7c74d@...kaller.appspotmail.com
> > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/67ea5c01.050a0220.1547ec.012b.GAE@google.com/T/#u
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> > Cc: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
> > Cc: Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
> > ---
> >  net/sctp/sysctl.c | 4 ++++
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/sctp/sysctl.c b/net/sctp/sysctl.c
> > index 8e1e97be4df79f3245e2bbbeb0a75841abc67f58..ee3eac338a9deef064f273e29bb59b057835d3f1 100644
> > --- a/net/sctp/sysctl.c
> > +++ b/net/sctp/sysctl.c
> > @@ -525,6 +525,8 @@ static int proc_sctp_do_auth(const struct ctl_table *ctl, int write,
> >         return ret;
> >  }
> >
> > +static DEFINE_MUTEX(sctp_sysctl_mutex);
> > +
> >  static int proc_sctp_do_udp_port(const struct ctl_table *ctl, int write,
> >                                  void *buffer, size_t *lenp, loff_t *ppos)
> >  {
> > @@ -549,6 +551,7 @@ static int proc_sctp_do_udp_port(const struct ctl_table *ctl, int write,
> >                 if (new_value > max || new_value < min)
> >                         return -EINVAL;
> >
> > +               mutex_lock(&sctp_sysctl_mutex);
> >                 net->sctp.udp_port = new_value;
> >                 sctp_udp_sock_stop(net);
> >                 if (new_value) {
> > @@ -561,6 +564,7 @@ static int proc_sctp_do_udp_port(const struct ctl_table *ctl, int write,
> >                 lock_sock(sk);
> >                 sctp_sk(sk)->udp_port = htons(net->sctp.udp_port);
> >                 release_sock(sk);
> > +               mutex_unlock(&sctp_sysctl_mutex);
> >         }
> >
> >         return ret;
> > --
> > 2.49.0.472.ge94155a9ec-goog
> >
> Instead of introducing a new lock for this, wouldn't be better to just
> move up `lock_sock(sk)` a little bit?

It depends if calling synchronize_rcu() two times while holding the
socket lock is ok or not ?

What is the issue about using a separate mutex ?