Re: [PATCH bpf] bpf: sockmap, fix skb refcnt race after locking changes

[Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>]

On Fri, 2023-09-01 at 23:20 +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 01:21:37PM -0700, John Fastabend wrote:
> > There is a race where skb's from the sk_psock_backlog can be referenced
> > after userspace side has already skb_consumed() the sk_buff and its
> > refcnt dropped to zer0 causing use after free.
> > 
> > The flow is the following,
> > 
> >   while ((skb = skb_peek(&psock->ingress_skb))
> >     sk_psock_handle_Skb(psock, skb, ..., ingress)
> >     if (!ingress) ...
> >     sk_psock_skb_ingress
> >        sk_psock_skb_ingress_enqueue(skb)
> >           msg->skb = skb
> >           sk_psock_queue_msg(psock, msg)
> >     skb_dequeue(&psock->ingress_skb)
> > 
> > The sk_psock_queue_msg() puts the msg on the ingress_msg queue. This is
> > what the application reads when recvmsg() is called. An application can
> > read this anytime after the msg is placed on the queue. The recvmsg
> > hook will also read msg->skb and then after user space reads the msg
> > will call consume_skb(skb) on it effectively free'ing it.
> > 
> > But, the race is in above where backlog queue still has a reference to
> > the skb and calls skb_dequeue(). If the skb_dequeue happens after the
> > user reads and free's the skb we have a use after free.
> > 
> > The !ingress case does not suffer from this problem because it uses
> > sendmsg_*(sk, msg) which does not pass the sk_buff further down the
> > stack.
> > 
> > The following splat was observed with 'test_progs -t sockmap_listen':
> > 
> > [ 1022.710250][ T2556] general protection fault, ...
> >  ...
> > [ 1022.712830][ T2556] Workqueue: events sk_psock_backlog
> > [ 1022.713262][ T2556] RIP: 0010:skb_dequeue+0x4c/0x80
> > [ 1022.713653][ T2556] Code: ...
> >  ...
> > [ 1022.720699][ T2556] Call Trace:
> > [ 1022.720984][ T2556]  <TASK>
> > [ 1022.721254][ T2556]  ? die_addr+0x32/0x80^M
> > [ 1022.721589][ T2556]  ? exc_general_protection+0x25a/0x4b0
> > [ 1022.722026][ T2556]  ? asm_exc_general_protection+0x22/0x30
> > [ 1022.722489][ T2556]  ? skb_dequeue+0x4c/0x80
> > [ 1022.722854][ T2556]  sk_psock_backlog+0x27a/0x300
> > [ 1022.723243][ T2556]  process_one_work+0x2a7/0x5b0
> > [ 1022.723633][ T2556]  worker_thread+0x4f/0x3a0
> > [ 1022.723998][ T2556]  ? __pfx_worker_thread+0x10/0x10
> > [ 1022.724386][ T2556]  kthread+0xfd/0x130
> > [ 1022.724709][ T2556]  ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
> > [ 1022.725066][ T2556]  ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x50
> > [ 1022.725409][ T2556]  ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
> > [ 1022.725799][ T2556]  ret_from_fork_asm+0x1b/0x30
> > [ 1022.726201][ T2556]  </TASK>
> > 
> > To fix we add an skb_get() before passing the skb to be enqueued in
> > the engress queue. This bumps the skb->users refcnt so that consume_skb
> > and kfree_skb will not immediately free the sk_buff. With this we can
> > be sure the skb is still around when we do the dequeue. Then we just
> > need to decrement the refcnt or free the skb in the backlog case which
> > we do by calling kfree_skb() on the ingress case as well as the sendmsg
> > case.
> > 
> > Before locking change from fixes tag we had the sock locked so we
> > couldn't race with user and there was no issue here.
> > 
> > Fixes: 799aa7f98d53e (skmsg: Avoid lock_sock() in sk_psock_backlog())
> > Reported-by: Jiri Olsa  <jolsa@kernel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  net/core/skmsg.c | 12 ++++++++----
> >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/net/core/skmsg.c b/net/core/skmsg.c
> > index a0659fc29bcc..6c31eefbd777 100644
> > --- a/net/core/skmsg.c
> > +++ b/net/core/skmsg.c
> > @@ -612,12 +612,18 @@ static int sk_psock_skb_ingress_self(struct sk_psock *psock, struct sk_buff *skb
> >  static int sk_psock_handle_skb(struct sk_psock *psock, struct sk_buff *skb,
> >  			       u32 off, u32 len, bool ingress)
> >  {
> > +	int err = 0;
> > +
> >  	if (!ingress) {
> >  		if (!sock_writeable(psock->sk))
> >  			return -EAGAIN;
> >  		return skb_send_sock(psock->sk, skb, off, len);
> >  	}
> > -	return sk_psock_skb_ingress(psock, skb, off, len);
> > +	skb_get(skb);
> > +	err = sk_psock_skb_ingress(psock, skb, off, len);
> > +	if (err < 0)
> > +		kfree_skb(skb);
> > +	return err;
> >  }
> >  
> >  static void sk_psock_skb_state(struct sk_psock *psock,
> > @@ -685,9 +691,7 @@ static void sk_psock_backlog(struct work_struct *work)
> >  		} while (len);
> >  
> >  		skb = skb_dequeue(&psock->ingress_skb);
> > -		if (!ingress) {
> > -			kfree_skb(skb);
> > -		}
> > +		kfree_skb(skb);
> >  	}
> >  end:
> >  	mutex_unlock(&psock->work_mutex);
> > -- 
> > 2.33.0
> > 
> 
> there's no crash wit with fix, but I noticed I occasionally get FAIL
> 

Please note this patch:
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20230901031037.3314007-1-xukuohai@huaweicloud.com/
Which should fix the test in question.

> #212/78  sockmap_listen/sockmap Unix test_unix_redir:OK
> ./test_progs:vsock_unix_redir_connectible:1501: ingress: write: Transport endpoint is not connected
> vsock_unix_redir_connectible:FAIL:1501
> ./test_progs:vsock_unix_redir_connectible:1501: egress: write: Transport endpoint is not connected
> vsock_unix_redir_connectible:FAIL:1501
> #212/79  sockmap_listen/sockmap VSOCK test_vsock_redir:FAIL
> #212/80  sockmap_listen/sockhash IPv4 TCP test_insert_invalid:OK
> 
> no idea if it's related
> 
> jirka