All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
To: Dong Chenchen <dongchenchen2@huawei.com>
Cc: fw@strlen.de, steffen.klassert@secunet.com,
	herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, davem@davemloft.net,
	edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com,
	timo.teras@iki.fi, yuehaibing@huawei.com, weiyongjun1@huawei.com,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch net, v2] net: xfrm: skip policies marked as dead while reinserting policies
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2023 15:32:33 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230815123233.GM22185@unreal> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230815091324.GL22185@unreal>

On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 07:35:13PM +0800, Dong Chenchen wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 04:47:58PM +0800, Dong Chenchen wrote:
> >> On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 10:00:13PM +0800, Dong Chenchen wrote:
> >> >> BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in xfrm_policy_inexact_list_reinsert+0xb6/0x430
> >> >> Read of size 1 at addr ffff8881051f3bf8 by task ip/668
> >> >> 
> >> >> CPU: 2 PID: 668 Comm: ip Not tainted 6.5.0-rc5-00182-g25aa0bebba72-dirty #64
> >> >> Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.13 04/01/2014
> >> >> Call Trace:
> >> >>  <TASK>
> >> >>  dump_stack_lvl+0x72/0xa0
> >> >>  print_report+0xd0/0x620
> >> >>  kasan_report+0xb6/0xf0
> >> >>  xfrm_policy_inexact_list_reinsert+0xb6/0x430
> >> >>  xfrm_policy_inexact_insert_node.constprop.0+0x537/0x800
> >> >>  xfrm_policy_inexact_alloc_chain+0x23f/0x320
> >> >>  xfrm_policy_inexact_insert+0x6b/0x590
> >> >>  xfrm_policy_insert+0x3b1/0x480
> >> >>  xfrm_add_policy+0x23c/0x3c0
> >> >>  xfrm_user_rcv_msg+0x2d0/0x510
> >> >>  netlink_rcv_skb+0x10d/0x2d0
> >> >>  xfrm_netlink_rcv+0x49/0x60
> >> >>  netlink_unicast+0x3fe/0x540
> >> >>  netlink_sendmsg+0x528/0x970
> >> >>  sock_sendmsg+0x14a/0x160
> >> >>  ____sys_sendmsg+0x4fc/0x580
> >> >>  ___sys_sendmsg+0xef/0x160
> >> >>  __sys_sendmsg+0xf7/0x1b0
> >> >>  do_syscall_64+0x3f/0x90
> >> >>  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x73/0xdd
> >> >> 
> >> >> The root cause is:
> >> >> 
> >> >> cpu 0			cpu1
> >> >> xfrm_dump_policy
> >> >> xfrm_policy_walk
> >> >> list_move_tail
> >> >> 			xfrm_add_policy
> >> >> 			... ...
> >> >> 			xfrm_policy_inexact_list_reinsert
> >> >> 			list_for_each_entry_reverse
> >> >> 				if (!policy->bydst_reinsert)
> >> >> 				//read non-existent policy
> >> >> xfrm_dump_policy_done
> >> >> xfrm_policy_walk_done
> >> >> list_del(&walk->walk.all);
> >> >> 
> >> >> If dump_one_policy() returns err (triggered by netlink socket),
> >> >> xfrm_policy_walk() will move walk initialized by socket to list
> >> >> net->xfrm.policy_all. so this socket becomes visible in the global
> >> >> policy list. The head *walk can be traversed when users add policies
> >> >> with different prefixlen and trigger xfrm_policy node merge.
> >> >> 
> >> >> The issue can also be triggered by policy list traversal while rehashing
> >> >> and flushing policies.
> >> >> 
> >> >> It can be fixed by skip such "policies" with walk.dead set to 1.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Fixes: 9cf545ebd591 ("xfrm: policy: store inexact policies in a tree ordered by destination address")
> >> >> Fixes: 12a169e7d8f4 ("ipsec: Put dumpers on the dump list")
> >> >> Signed-off-by: Dong Chenchen <dongchenchen2@huawei.com>
> >> >> ---
> >> >> v2: fix similiar similar while rehashing and flushing policies
> >> >> ---
> >> >>  net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c | 20 +++++++++++++++-----
> >> >>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> ><...>
> >
> >> >> @@ -1253,11 +1256,14 @@ static void xfrm_hash_rebuild(struct work_struct *work)
> >> >>  	 * we start with destructive action.
> >> >>  	 */
> >> >>  	list_for_each_entry(policy, &net->xfrm.policy_all, walk.all) {
> >> >> +		if (policy->walk.dead)
> >> >> +			continue;
> >> >> +
> >> >>  		struct xfrm_pol_inexact_bin *bin;
> >> >>  		u8 dbits, sbits;
> >> >
> >> >Same comment as above.
> >> >
> >> >>  
> >> >>  		dir = xfrm_policy_id2dir(policy->index);
> >> >> -		if (policy->walk.dead || dir >= XFRM_POLICY_MAX)
> >> >> +		if (dir >= XFRM_POLICY_MAX)
> >> >
> >> >This change is unnecessary, previous code was perfectly fine.
> >> >
> >> The walker object initialized by xfrm_policy_walk_init() doesnt have policy. 
> >> list_for_each_entry() will use the walker offset to calculate policy address.
> >> It's nonexistent and different from invalid dead policy. It will read memory 
> >> that doesnt belong to walker if dereference policy->index.
> >> I think we should protect the memory.
> >
> >But all operations here are an outcome of "list_for_each_entry(policy,
> >&net->xfrm.policy_all, walk.all)" which stores in policy iterator
> >the pointer to struct xfrm_policy.
> >
> >How at the same time access to policy->walk.dead is valid while
> >policy->index is not?
> >
> >Thanks
> 1.walker init: its only a list head, no policy
> xfrm_dump_policy_start
> 	xfrm_policy_walk_init(walk, XFRM_POLICY_TYPE_ANY);
> 		INIT_LIST_HEAD(&walk->walk.all);
> 		walk->walk.dead = 1;
> 
> 2.add the walk head to net->xfrm.policy_all
> xfrm_policy_walk
>     list_for_each_entry_from(x, &net->xfrm.policy_all, all)
> 	if (error) {
> 		list_move_tail(&walk->walk.all, &x->all);
> 		//add the walk to list tail
> 
> 3.traverse the walk list
> xfrm_policy_flush
> list_for_each_entry(pol, &net->xfrm.policy_all, walk.all)
> 	 dir = xfrm_policy_id2dir(pol->index);
> 
> it gets policy by &net->xfrm.policy_all-0x130(offset of walk in policy)
> but when walk is head, we will read others memory by the calculated policy.
> such as:
>   walk addr  		policy addr
> 0xffff0000d7f3b530    0xffff0000d7f3b400 (non-existent) 
> 
> head walker of net->xfrm.policy_all can be skipped by  list_for_each_entry().
> but the walker created by socket is located list tail. so we should skip it. 

list_for_each_entry_from(x, &net->xfrm.policy_all, all) gives you
pointer to "x", you can't access some of its fields and say they
exist and other doesn't. Once you can call to "x->...", you can 
call to "x->index" too.

Thanks

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dong Chenchen <dongchenchen2@huawei.com>
To: <leon@kernel.org>
Cc: <fw@strlen.de>, <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>,
	<herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>, <davem@davemloft.net>,
	<edumazet@google.com>, <kuba@kernel.org>, <pabeni@redhat.com>,
	<timo.teras@iki.fi>, <yuehaibing@huawei.com>,
	<weiyongjun1@huawei.com>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch net, v2] net: xfrm: skip policies marked as dead while reinserting policies
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2023 21:43:28 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230815123233.GM22185@unreal> (raw)
Message-ID: <20230815134328.Ka1VuA1yxFbXfHX7SABnhVE1CvXXd9UnZAqvxrkL1Sk@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230815091324.GL22185@unreal>

On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 07:35:13PM +0800, Dong Chenchen wrote:
>> >> The walker object initialized by xfrm_policy_walk_init() doesnt have policy. 
>> >> list_for_each_entry() will use the walker offset to calculate policy address.
>> >> It's nonexistent and different from invalid dead policy. It will read memory 
>> >> that doesnt belong to walker if dereference policy->index.
>> >> I think we should protect the memory.
>> >
>> >But all operations here are an outcome of "list_for_each_entry(policy,
>> >&net->xfrm.policy_all, walk.all)" which stores in policy iterator
>> >the pointer to struct xfrm_policy.
>> >
>> >How at the same time access to policy->walk.dead is valid while
>> >policy->index is not?
>> >
>> >Thanks
>> 1.walker init: its only a list head, no policy
>> xfrm_dump_policy_start
>> 	xfrm_policy_walk_init(walk, XFRM_POLICY_TYPE_ANY);
>> 		INIT_LIST_HEAD(&walk->walk.all);
>> 		walk->walk.dead = 1;
>> 
>> 2.add the walk head to net->xfrm.policy_all
>> xfrm_policy_walk
>>     list_for_each_entry_from(x, &net->xfrm.policy_all, all)
>> 	if (error) {
>> 		list_move_tail(&walk->walk.all, &x->all);
>> 		//add the walk to list tail
>> 
>> 3.traverse the walk list
>> xfrm_policy_flush
>> list_for_each_entry(pol, &net->xfrm.policy_all, walk.all)
>> 	 dir = xfrm_policy_id2dir(pol->index);
>> 
>> it gets policy by &net->xfrm.policy_all-0x130(offset of walk in policy)
>> but when walk is head, we will read others memory by the calculated policy.
>> such as:
>>   walk addr  		policy addr
>> 0xffff0000d7f3b530    0xffff0000d7f3b400 (non-existent) 
>> 
>> head walker of net->xfrm.policy_all can be skipped by  list_for_each_entry().
>> but the walker created by socket is located list tail. so we should skip it. 
>
>list_for_each_entry_from(x, &net->xfrm.policy_all, all) gives you
>pointer to "x", you can't access some of its fields and say they
>exist and other doesn't. Once you can call to "x->...", you can 
>call to "x->index" too.
>
>Thanks
We get a pointer addr not actual variable from list_for_each_entry_from(),
that calculated by walk address dec offset from struct xfrm_policy(0x130).

walk addr: 0xffff0000d7f3b530 //allocated by socket, valid
-> dec 0x130 (use macro container_of)
policy_addr:0xffff0000d7f3b400 //only a pointer addr
-> add 0x130 
policy->walk:0xffff0000d7f3b530 //its still walker head

I think its invalid to read policy->index from memory that maybe allocated
by other user.

Thanks!
Dong Chenchen

  reply	other threads:[~2023-08-15 12:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-08-14 14:00 [Patch net, v2] net: xfrm: skip policies marked as dead while reinserting policies Dong Chenchen
2023-08-14 14:12 ` Florian Westphal
2023-08-15  6:00 ` Leon Romanovsky
2023-08-15  8:47   ` Dong Chenchen
2023-08-15  6:04   ` Florian Westphal
2023-08-15  7:30     ` Leon Romanovsky
2023-08-15  7:51       ` Herbert Xu
2023-08-15  8:05         ` Leon Romanovsky
2023-08-15  9:13   ` Leon Romanovsky
2023-08-15 11:35     ` Dong Chenchen
2023-08-15 12:32     ` Leon Romanovsky [this message]
2023-08-15 13:43       ` Dong Chenchen
2023-08-15 18:19       ` Leon Romanovsky

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20230815123233.GM22185@unreal \
    --to=leon@kernel.org \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=dongchenchen2@huawei.com \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=fw@strlen.de \
    --cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
    --cc=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
    --cc=steffen.klassert@secunet.com \
    --cc=timo.teras@iki.fi \
    --cc=weiyongjun1@huawei.com \
    --cc=yuehaibing@huawei.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.