From: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@cloudflare.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Cc: "liujian (CE)" <liujian56@huawei.com>,
"john.fastabend@gmail.com" <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
"davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
"yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org" <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>,
"dsahern@kernel.org" <dsahern@kernel.org>,
"kuba@kernel.org" <kuba@kernel.org>,
"pabeni@redhat.com" <pabeni@redhat.com>,
"andrii@kernel.org" <andrii@kernel.org>,
"mykolal@fb.com" <mykolal@fb.com>,
"ast@kernel.org" <ast@kernel.org>,
"daniel@iogearbox.net" <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
"martin.lau@linux.dev" <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
"song@kernel.org" <song@kernel.org>, "yhs@fb.com" <yhs@fb.com>,
"kpsingh@kernel.org" <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
"sdf@google.com" <sdf@google.com>,
"haoluo@google.com" <haoluo@google.com>,
"jolsa@kernel.org" <jolsa@kernel.org>,
"shuah@kernel.org" <shuah@kernel.org>,
"bpf@vger.kernel.org" <bpf@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] sk_msg: Keep reference on socket file while wait_memory
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2022 18:12:36 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87v8qk9rut.fsf@cloudflare.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANn89i+LX=fUhcjdzppm7u2bqgwApRSPDscuwhN6828ua=LumA@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 08:52 AM -07, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 3:37 AM Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@cloudflare.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 10:01 AM GMT, liujian (CE) wrote:
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Jakub Sitnicki [mailto:jakub@cloudflare.com]
>> >> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 4:39 PM
>> >> To: liujian (CE) <liujian56@huawei.com>; john.fastabend@gmail.com;
>> >> edumazet@google.com
>> >> Cc: davem@davemloft.net; yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org; dsahern@kernel.org;
>> >> kuba@kernel.org; pabeni@redhat.com; andrii@kernel.org; mykolal@fb.com;
>> >> ast@kernel.org; daniel@iogearbox.net; martin.lau@linux.dev;
>> >> song@kernel.org; yhs@fb.com; kpsingh@kernel.org; sdf@google.com;
>> >> haoluo@google.com; jolsa@kernel.org; shuah@kernel.org;
>> >> bpf@vger.kernel.org
>> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] sk_msg: Keep reference on socket file
>> >> while wait_memory
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 10:33 AM +08, Liu Jian wrote:
>> >> > Fix the below NULL pointer dereference:
>> >> >
>> >> > [ 14.471200] Call Trace:
>> >> > [ 14.471562] <TASK>
>> >> > [ 14.471882] lock_acquire+0x245/0x2e0
>> >> > [ 14.472416] ? remove_wait_queue+0x12/0x50
>> >> > [ 14.473014] ? _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x17/0x50
>> >> > [ 14.473681] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x3d/0x50
>> >> > [ 14.474318] ? remove_wait_queue+0x12/0x50
>> >> > [ 14.474907] remove_wait_queue+0x12/0x50
>> >> > [ 14.475480] sk_stream_wait_memory+0x20d/0x340
>> >> > [ 14.476127] ? do_wait_intr_irq+0x80/0x80
>> >> > [ 14.476704] do_tcp_sendpages+0x287/0x600
>> >> > [ 14.477283] tcp_bpf_push+0xab/0x260
>> >> > [ 14.477817] tcp_bpf_sendmsg_redir+0x297/0x500
>> >> > [ 14.478461] ? __local_bh_enable_ip+0x77/0xe0
>> >> > [ 14.479096] tcp_bpf_send_verdict+0x105/0x470
>> >> > [ 14.479729] tcp_bpf_sendmsg+0x318/0x4f0
>> >> > [ 14.480311] sock_sendmsg+0x2d/0x40
>> >> > [ 14.480822] ____sys_sendmsg+0x1b4/0x1c0
>> >> > [ 14.481390] ? copy_msghdr_from_user+0x62/0x80
>> >> > [ 14.482048] ___sys_sendmsg+0x78/0xb0
>> >> > [ 14.482580] ? vmf_insert_pfn_prot+0x91/0x150
>> >> > [ 14.483215] ? __do_fault+0x2a/0x1a0
>> >> > [ 14.483738] ? do_fault+0x15e/0x5d0
>> >> > [ 14.484246] ? __handle_mm_fault+0x56b/0x1040
>> >> > [ 14.484874] ? lock_is_held_type+0xdf/0x130
>> >> > [ 14.485474] ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x90
>> >> > [ 14.486046] ? __sys_sendmsg+0x41/0x70
>> >> > [ 14.486587] __sys_sendmsg+0x41/0x70
>> >> > [ 14.487105] ? intel_pmu_drain_pebs_core+0x350/0x350
>> >> > [ 14.487822] do_syscall_64+0x34/0x80
>> >> > [ 14.488345] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd
>> >> >
>> >> > The test scene as following flow:
>> >> > thread1 thread2
>> >> > ----------- ---------------
>> >> > tcp_bpf_sendmsg
>> >> > tcp_bpf_send_verdict
>> >> > tcp_bpf_sendmsg_redir sock_close
>> >> > tcp_bpf_push_locked __sock_release
>> >> > tcp_bpf_push //inet_release
>> >> > do_tcp_sendpages sock->ops->release
>> >> > sk_stream_wait_memory // tcp_close
>> >> > sk_wait_event sk->sk_prot->close
>> >> > release_sock(__sk);
>> >> > ***
>> >> >
>> >> > lock_sock(sk);
>> >> > __tcp_close
>> >> > sock_orphan(sk)
>> >> > sk->sk_wq = NULL
>> >> > release_sock
>> >> > ****
>> >> > lock_sock(__sk);
>> >> > remove_wait_queue(sk_sleep(sk), &wait);
>> >> > sk_sleep(sk)
>> >> > //NULL pointer dereference
>> >> > &rcu_dereference_raw(sk->sk_wq)->wait
>> >> >
>> >> > While waiting for memory in thread1, the socket is released with its
>> >> > wait queue because thread2 has closed it. This caused by
>> >> > tcp_bpf_send_verdict didn't increase the f_count of psock->sk_redir-
>> >> >sk_socket->file in thread1.
>> >>
>> >> I'm not sure about this approach. Keeping a closed sock file alive, just so we
>> >> can wakeup from sleep, seems like wasted effort.
>> >>
>> >> __tcp_close sets sk->sk_shutdown = RCV_SHUTDOWN | SEND_SHUTDOWN.
>> >> So we will return from sk_stream_wait_memory via the do_error path.
>> >>
>> >> SEND_SHUTDOWN might be set because socket got closed and orphaned -
>> >> dead and detached from its file, like in this case.
>> >>
>> >> So, IMHO, we should check if SOCK_DEAD flag is set on wakeup due to
>> >> SEND_SHUTDOWN in sk_stream_wait_memory, before accessing the wait
>> >> queue.
>> >>
>> >> [...]
>> > As jakub's approach, this problem can be solved.
>> >
>> > diff --git a/include/net/sock.h b/include/net/sock.h
>> > index a7273b289188..a3dab7140f1e 100644
>> > --- a/include/net/sock.h
>> > +++ b/include/net/sock.h
>> > @@ -1998,6 +1998,8 @@ static inline void sk_set_socket(struct sock *sk, struct socket *sock)
>> > static inline wait_queue_head_t *sk_sleep(struct sock *sk)
>> > {
>> > BUILD_BUG_ON(offsetof(struct socket_wq, wait) != 0);
>> > + if (sock_flag(sk, SOCK_DEAD))
>> > + return NULL;
>> > return &rcu_dereference_raw(sk->sk_wq)->wait;
>> > }
>> > /* Detach socket from process context.
>> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/wait.c b/kernel/sched/wait.c
>> > index 9860bb9a847c..da1be17d0b19 100644
>> > --- a/kernel/sched/wait.c
>> > +++ b/kernel/sched/wait.c
>> > @@ -51,6 +51,8 @@ void remove_wait_queue(struct wait_queue_head *wq_head, struct wait_queue_entry
>> > {
>> > unsigned long flags;
>> >
>> > + if (wq_head == NULL)
>> > + return;
>> > spin_lock_irqsave(&wq_head->lock, flags);
>> > __remove_wait_queue(wq_head, wq_entry);
>> > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&wq_head->lock, flags);
>>
>> I don't know if we want to change the contract for sk_sleep()
>> remove_wait_queue() so that they accept dead sockets or nulls.
>>
>> How about just:
>>
>> diff --git a/net/core/stream.c b/net/core/stream.c
>> index ccc083cdef23..1105057ce00a 100644
>> --- a/net/core/stream.c
>> +++ b/net/core/stream.c
>> @@ -159,7 +159,8 @@ int sk_stream_wait_memory(struct sock *sk, long *timeo_p)
>> *timeo_p = current_timeo;
>> }
>> out:
>> - remove_wait_queue(sk_sleep(sk), &wait);
>> + if (!sock_flag(sk, SOCK_DEAD))
>> + remove_wait_queue(sk_sleep(sk), &wait);
>> return err;
>>
>> do_error:
>>
>
> OK, but what about tcp_msg_wait_data() and udp_msg_wait_data () ?
> It seems they could be vulnerable as well..
TBH haven't thought about these until now.
They are reachable only via sk->sk_prot->recvmsg, so from recvmsg(2) or
recvmmsg(2). syscall layer will keep the socket file and the wait queue
alive.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-08-22 16:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-08-15 2:33 [PATCH bpf-next 0/2] > Keep reference on socket file while wait send memory Liu Jian
2022-08-15 2:33 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] sk_msg: Keep reference on socket file while wait_memory Liu Jian
2022-08-17 0:54 ` John Fastabend
2022-08-17 2:11 ` liujian (CE)
2022-08-17 18:33 ` John Fastabend
2022-08-19 8:39 ` Jakub Sitnicki
2022-08-19 10:01 ` liujian (CE)
2022-08-19 10:34 ` Jakub Sitnicki
2022-08-20 3:01 ` liujian (CE)
2022-08-22 14:32 ` Jakub Sitnicki
2022-08-22 15:52 ` Eric Dumazet
2022-08-22 16:12 ` Jakub Sitnicki [this message]
2022-08-15 2:33 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add wait send memory test for sockmap redirect Liu Jian
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=87v8qk9rut.fsf@cloudflare.com \
--to=jakub@cloudflare.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dsahern@kernel.org \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=haoluo@google.com \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=liujian56@huawei.com \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=mykolal@fb.com \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=sdf@google.com \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=yhs@fb.com \
--cc=yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org \
/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.