Re: [PATCH net 2/2] tcp_bpf: fix copied value in tcp_bpf_sendmsg

[John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>]

Levi Zim wrote:
> On 2024-12-09 15:02, John Fastabend wrote:
> > Levi Zim via B4 Relay wrote:
> >> From: Levi Zim <rsworktech@outlook.com>
> >>
> >> bpf kselftest sockhash::test_txmsg_cork_hangs in test_sockmap.c triggers a
> >> kernel NULL pointer dereference:
> > Is it just the cork test that causes issue?
> Yes. More specifically only "sockhash::test_txmsg_cork_hangs" but not 
> "sockmap::test_txmsg_cork_hangs"
> >
> >> BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 0000000000000008
> >>   ? __die_body+0x6e/0xb0
> >>   ? __die+0x8b/0xa0
> >>   ? page_fault_oops+0x358/0x3c0
> >>   ? local_clock+0x19/0x30
> >>   ? lock_release+0x11b/0x440
> >>   ? kernelmode_fixup_or_oops+0x54/0x60
> >>   ? __bad_area_nosemaphore+0x4f/0x210
> >>   ? mmap_read_unlock+0x13/0x30
> >>   ? bad_area_nosemaphore+0x16/0x20
> >>   ? do_user_addr_fault+0x6fd/0x740
> >>   ? prb_read_valid+0x1d/0x30
> >>   ? exc_page_fault+0x55/0xd0
> >>   ? asm_exc_page_fault+0x2b/0x30
> >>   ? splice_to_socket+0x52e/0x630
> >>   ? shmem_file_splice_read+0x2b1/0x310
> >>   direct_splice_actor+0x47/0x70
> >>   splice_direct_to_actor+0x133/0x300
> >>   ? do_splice_direct+0x90/0x90
> >>   do_splice_direct+0x64/0x90
> >>   ? __ia32_sys_tee+0x30/0x30
> >>   do_sendfile+0x214/0x300
> >>   __se_sys_sendfile64+0x8e/0xb0
> >>   __x64_sys_sendfile64+0x25/0x30
> >>   x64_sys_call+0xb82/0x2840
> >>   do_syscall_64+0x75/0x110
> >>   entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x4b/0x53
> >>
> >> This is caused by tcp_bpf_sendmsg() returning a larger value(12289) than
> >> size (8192), which causes the while loop in splice_to_socket() to release
> >> an uninitialized pipe buf.
> >>
> >> The underlying cause is that this code assumes sk_msg_memcopy_from_iter()
> >> will copy all bytes upon success but it actually might only copy part of
> >> it.
> > The intent was to ensure we allocate a buffer large enough to fit the
> > data. I guess the cork + send here is not allocating enough bytes?
> I am not familiar enough with neither this part of code nor tcp with bpf 
> in general and just
> hit this bug when trying to run the bpf kselftests. Then I decided to 
> debug it.
> 
> In my perspective the buffer(8192) is large enough to hold the data(8192),
> but tcp_bpf_sendmsg returns 12289 which is a little surprising for me.
> 
> Could you further elaborate why 8192 bytes are not enough? Thanks!
> 

There is some bug in the buffer allocation sizing that is happening
because of cork'd data. The cork logic is used to hold extra bytes
in buffer until N bytes have been received.

I'm not really opposed to the fix here, but would be good to understand
how it got here. I have some time tommorrow I can look a bit more.