Re: mptcp splat

[Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>]

On Wed, 2024-03-27 at 10:00 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 9:56 AM Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, 2024-03-27 at 09:43 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > I ffwded bpf tree with the recent net fixes and caught this:
> > > 
> > > [   48.386337] WARNING: CPU: 32 PID: 3276 at net/mptcp/subflow.c:1430
> > > subflow_data_ready+0x147/0x1c0
> > > [   48.392012] Modules linked in: dummy bpf_testmod(O) [last unloaded:
> > > bpf_test_no_cfi(O)]
> > > [   48.396609] CPU: 32 PID: 3276 Comm: test_progs Tainted: G
> > > O       6.8.0-12873-g2c43c33bfd23 #1014
> > > #[   48.467143] Call Trace:
> > > [   48.469094]  <TASK>
> > > [   48.472159]  ? __warn+0x80/0x180
> > > [   48.475019]  ? subflow_data_ready+0x147/0x1c0
> > > [   48.478068]  ? report_bug+0x189/0x1c0
> > > [   48.480725]  ? handle_bug+0x36/0x70
> > > [   48.483061]  ? exc_invalid_op+0x13/0x60
> > > [   48.485809]  ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x16/0x20
> > > [   48.488754]  ? subflow_data_ready+0x147/0x1c0
> > > [   48.492159]  mptcp_set_rcvlowat+0x79/0x1d0
> > > [   48.495026]  sk_setsockopt+0x6c0/0x1540
> > > 
> > > It doesn't reproduce all the time though.
> > > Some race?
> > > Known issue?
> > 
> > It was not known to me. Looks like something related to not so recent
> > changes (rcvlowat support).
> > 
> > Definitely looks lie a race.
> > 
> > If you could share more info about the running context and/or a full
> > decoded splat it could help, thanks!
> 
> This is just running bpf selftests in parallel:
> test_progs -j
> 
> The end of the splat:
> [   48.500075]  __bpf_setsockopt+0x6f/0x90
> [   48.503124]  bpf_sock_ops_setsockopt+0x3c/0x90
> [   48.506053]  bpf_prog_509ce5db2c7f9981_bpf_test_sockopt_int+0xb4/0x11b
> [   48.510178]  bpf_prog_dce07e362d941d2b_bpf_test_socket_sockopt+0x12b/0x132
> [   48.515070]  bpf_prog_348c9b5faaf10092_skops_sockopt+0x954/0xe86
> [   48.519050]  __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_sock_ops+0xbc/0x250
> [   48.523836]  tcp_connect+0x879/0x1160
> [   48.527239]  ? ktime_get_with_offset+0x8d/0x140
> [   48.531362]  tcp_v6_connect+0x50c/0x870
> [   48.534609]  ? mptcp_connect+0x129/0x280
> [   48.538483]  mptcp_connect+0x129/0x280
> [   48.542436]  __inet_stream_connect+0xce/0x370
> [   48.546664]  ? rcu_is_watching+0xd/0x40
> [   48.549063]  ? lock_release+0x1c4/0x280
> [   48.553497]  ? inet_stream_connect+0x22/0x50
> [   48.557289]  ? rcu_is_watching+0xd/0x40
> [   48.560430]  inet_stream_connect+0x36/0x50
> [   48.563604]  bpf_trampoline_6442491565+0x49/0xef
> [   48.567770]  ? security_socket_connect+0x34/0x50
> [   48.575400]  inet_stream_connect+0x5/0x50
> [   48.577721]  __sys_connect+0x63/0x90
> [   48.580189]  ? bpf_trace_run2+0xb0/0x1a0
> [   48.583171]  ? rcu_is_watching+0xd/0x40
> [   48.585802]  ? syscall_trace_enter+0xfb/0x1e0
> [   48.588836]  __x64_sys_connect+0x14/0x20

Ouch, it looks bad. BPF should not allow any action on mptcp subflows
that go through sk_socket. They touch the mptcp main socket, which is
_not_ protected by the subflow socket lock.

AFICS currently the relevant set of racing sockopt allowed by bpf boils
down to SO_RCVLOWAT only - sk_setsockopt(SO_RCVLOWAT) will call sk-
>sk_socket->ops->set_rcvlowat()

So something like the following (completely untested) should possibly
address the issue at hand, but I think it would be better/safer
completely disable ebpf on mptcp subflows, WDYT?

Thanks,

Paolo

---
diff --git a/net/mptcp/sockopt.c b/net/mptcp/sockopt.c
index dcd1c76d2a3b..6e5e64c2cf89 100644
--- a/net/mptcp/sockopt.c
+++ b/net/mptcp/sockopt.c
@@ -1493,6 +1493,9 @@ int mptcp_set_rcvlowat(struct sock *sk, int val)
 	struct mptcp_subflow_context *subflow;
 	int space, cap;
 
+	if (has_current_bpf_ctx())
+		return -EINVAL;
+
 	if (sk->sk_userlocks & SOCK_RCVBUF_LOCK)
 		cap = sk->sk_rcvbuf >> 1;
 	else