netdev - Re: [PATCH net] udp: drop secpath before storing an skb in a receive queue

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: <CANn89iJLDmLZAxOJE0DV5HinTXZVCviBxn1OJBOorddNNywtCg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2025 01:33:24 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>
Cc: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, 
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, 
	Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com, 
	Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] udp: drop secpath before storing an skb in a receive queue

On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 1:28 AM Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net> wrote:
>
> 2025-10-14, 01:06:04 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 1:01 AM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 12:43 AM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 12:32 AM Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/14/25 8:37 AM, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> > > > > > 2025-10-14, 06:04:54 +0000, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > > > >> Michal reported and bisected an issue after recent adoption
> > > > > >> of skb_attempt_defer_free() in UDP.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> We had the same issue for TCP, that Sabrina fixed in commit 9b6412e6979f
> > > > > >> ("tcp: drop secpath at the same time as we currently drop dst")
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not convinced this is the same bug. The TCP one was a "leaked"
> > > > > > reference (delayed put). This looks more like a double put/missing
> > > > > > hold to me (we get to the destroy path without having done the proper
> > > > > > delete, which would set XFRM_STATE_DEAD).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And this shouldn't be an issue after b441cf3f8c4b ("xfrm: delete
> > > > > > x->tunnel as we delete x").
> > > > >
> > > > > I think Sabrina is right. If the skb carries a secpath,
> > > > > UDP_SKB_IS_STATELESS is not set, and skb_release_head_state() will be
> > > > > called by skb_consume_udp().
> > > > >
> > > > > skb_ext_put() does not clear skb->extensions nor ext->refcnt, if
> > > > > skb_attempt_defer_free() enters the slow path (kfree_skb_napi_cache()),
> > > > > the skb will go through again skb_release_head_state(), with a double free.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think something alike the following (completely untested) should work:
> > > > > ---
> > > > > diff --git a/net/ipv4/udp.c b/net/ipv4/udp.c
> > > > > index 95241093b7f0..4a308fd6aa6c 100644
> > > > > --- a/net/ipv4/udp.c
> > > > > +++ b/net/ipv4/udp.c
> > > > > @@ -1851,8 +1851,10 @@ void skb_consume_udp(struct sock *sk, struct
> > > > > sk_buff *skb, int len)
> > > > >                 sk_peek_offset_bwd(sk, len);
> > > > >
> > > > >         if (!skb_shared(skb)) {
> > > > > -               if (unlikely(udp_skb_has_head_state(skb)))
> > > > > +               if (unlikely(udp_skb_has_head_state(skb))) {
> > > > >                         skb_release_head_state(skb);
> > > > > +                       skb->active_extensions = 0;
> > >
> > > We probably also want to clear CONNTRACK state as well.
> >
> > Perhaps not use skb_release_head_state() ?
> >
> > We know there is no dst, and no destructor.
>
> Then, do we need to do anything before calling skb_attempt_defer_free()?
> skb_attempt_defer_free() only wants no dst and no destructor, and the
> secpath issue that we dealt with in TCP is not a problem anymore.
>
> Can we just drop the udp_skb_has_head_state() special handling and
> simply call skb_attempt_defer_free()?

Good point ! I need a second cup of coffee !