netdev - Re: sch_qfq: race conditon on qfq_aggregate (net/sched/sch

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: <aGNNfN_qoqLYm-34@xps>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2025 19:52:44 -0700
From: Xiang Mei <xmei5@....edu>
To: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>, security@...nel.org,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: sch_qfq: race conditon on qfq_aggregate (net/sched/sch_qfq.c)

On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 04:09:35PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> Hi Xiang,
> 
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 11:49:02AM -0700, Xiang Mei wrote:
> > Thank you very much for your time. We've re-tested the PoC and
> > confirmed it works on the latest kernels (6.12.35, 6.6.95, and
> > 6.16-rc4).
> > 
> > To help with reproduction, here are a few notes that might be useful:
> > 1. The QFQ scheduler needs to be compiled into the kernel:
> >     $ scripts/config --enable CONFIG_NET_SCHED
> >     $ scripts/config --enable CONFIG_NET_SCH_QFQ
> > 2. Since this is a race condition, the test environment should have at
> > least two cores (e.g., -smp cores=2 for QEMU).
> > 3. The PoC was compiled using: `gcc ./poc.c -o ./poc  -w --static`
> > 4. Before running the PoC, please check that the network interface
> > "lo" is in the "up" state.
> > 
> > Appreciate your feedback and patience.
> 
> Thanks for your detailed report and efforts on reproducing it on the
> latest kernel.
> 
> I think we may have a bigger problem here, the sch_tree_lock() is to lock
> the datapath, I doubt we really need to use sch_tree_lock() for
> qfq->agg. _If_ it is only for control path, using RTNL lock + RCU lock
> should be sufficient. We need a deeper review on the locking there.


I agree with your point and that's also my initial plan to use RCU lock 
to solve this issue but I was concerned about the code complexity since 
applying RCU lock on agg objections would be a verbose change on the QFQ 
scheduler. I'll try to make an RCU patch as soon as possible.

Thanks,
Xiang

> 
> Regards,
> Cong