Re: [PATCH v3] tun: fix use-after-free when register netdev failed

[Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>]

----- Original Message -----
> 
> 
> On 2019/8/22 14:07, Yang Yingliang wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 2019/8/22 10:13, Jason Wang wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2019/8/20 上午10:28, Jason Wang wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 2019/8/20 上午9:25, David Miller wrote:
> >>>> From: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@huawei.com>
> >>>> Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 21:31:19 +0800
> >>>>
> >>>>> Call tun_attach() after register_netdevice() to make sure tfile->tun
> >>>>> is not published until the netdevice is registered. So the read/write
> >>>>> thread can not use the tun pointer that may freed by free_netdev().
> >>>>> (The tun and dev pointer are allocated by alloc_netdev_mqs(), they
> >>>>> can
> >>>>> be freed by netdev_freemem().)
> >>>> register_netdevice() must always be the last operation in the order of
> >>>> network device setup.
> >>>>
> >>>> At the point register_netdevice() is called, the device is visible
> >>>> globally
> >>>> and therefore all of it's software state must be fully initialized and
> >>>> ready for us.
> >>>>
> >>>> You're going to have to find another solution to these problems.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The device is loosely coupled with sockets/queues. Each side is
> >>> allowed to be go away without caring the other side. So in this
> >>> case, there's a small window that network stack think the device has
> >>> one queue but actually not, the code can then safely drop them.
> >>> Maybe it's ok here with some comments?
> >>>
> >>> Or if not, we can try to hold the device before tun_attach and drop
> >>> it after register_netdevice().
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi Yang:
> >>
> >> I think maybe we can try to hold refcnt instead of playing real num
> >> queues here. Do you want to post a V4?
> > I think the refcnt can prevent freeing the memory in this case.
> > When register_netdevice() failed, free_netdev() will be called directly,
> > dev->pcpu_refcnt and dev are freed without checking refcnt of dev.
> How about using patch-v1 that using a flag to check whether the device
> registered successfully.
>

As I said, it lacks sufficient locks or barriers. To be clear, I meant
something like (compile-test only):

diff --git a/drivers/net/tun.c b/drivers/net/tun.c
index db16d7a13e00..e52678f9f049 100644
--- a/drivers/net/tun.c
+++ b/drivers/net/tun.c
@@ -2828,6 +2828,7 @@ static int tun_set_iff(struct net *net, struct file *file, struct ifreq *ifr)
                              (ifr->ifr_flags & TUN_FEATURES);
 
                INIT_LIST_HEAD(&tun->disabled);
+               dev_hold(dev);
                err = tun_attach(tun, file, false, ifr->ifr_flags & IFF_NAPI,
                                 ifr->ifr_flags & IFF_NAPI_FRAGS);
                if (err < 0)
@@ -2836,6 +2837,7 @@ static int tun_set_iff(struct net *net, struct file *file, struct ifreq *ifr)
                err = register_netdevice(tun->dev);
                if (err < 0)
                        goto err_detach;
+               dev_put(dev);
        }
 
        netif_carrier_on(tun->dev);
@@ -2852,11 +2854,13 @@ static int tun_set_iff(struct net *net, struct file *file, struct ifreq *ifr)
        return 0;
 
 err_detach:
+       dev_put(dev);
        tun_detach_all(dev);
        /* register_netdevice() already called tun_free_netdev() */
        goto err_free_dev;
 
 err_free_flow:
+       dev_put(dev);
        tun_flow_uninit(tun);
        security_tun_dev_free_security(tun->security);
 err_free_stat:

What's your thought?

Thanks