From: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
To: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>,
netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
linux-audit@redhat.com, syzkaller <syzkaller@googlegroups.com>,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Subject: Re: netlink: GPF in sock_sndtimeo
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 03:28:20 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161213082820.GF1305@madcap2.tricolour.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161213075117.GH22660@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
On 2016-12-13 02:51, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> On 2016-12-09 23:40, Cong Wang wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 8:13 PM, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 3:01 AM, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >> On 2016-12-08 22:57, Cong Wang wrote:
> > >>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >>> > I also tried to extend Cong Wang's idea to attempt to proactively respond to a
> > >>> > NETLINK_URELEASE on the audit_sock and reset it, but ran into a locking error
> > >>> > stack dump using mutex_lock(&audit_cmd_mutex) in the notifier callback.
> > >>> > Eliminating the lock since the sock is dead anways eliminates the error.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Is it safe? I'll resubmit if this looks remotely sane. Meanwhile I'll try to
> > >>> > get the test case to compile.
> > >>>
> > >>> It doesn't look safe, because 'audit_sock', 'audit_nlk_portid' and 'audit_pid'
> > >>> are updated as a whole and race between audit_receive_msg() and
> > >>> NETLINK_URELEASE.
> > >>
> > >> This is what I expected and why I originally added the mutex lock in the
> > >> callback... The dumps I got were bare with no wrapper identifying the
> > >> process context or specific error, so I'm at a bit of a loss how to
> > >> solve this (without thinking more about it) other than instinctively
> > >> removing the mutex.
> > >
> > > Netlink notifier can safely be converted to blocking one, I will send
> > > a patch.
> > >
> > > But I seriously doubt you really need NETLINK_URELEASE here,
> > > it adds nothing but overhead, b/c the netlink notifier is called on
> > > every netlink socket in the system, but for net exit path, that is
> > > relatively a slow path.
> > >
> > > Also, kauditd_send_skb() needs audit_cmd_mutex too.
> >
> > Please let me know what you think about the attached patch?
> >
> > Thanks!
>
> > commit a12b43ee814625933ff155c20dc863c59cfcf240
> > Author: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
> > Date: Fri Dec 9 17:56:42 2016 -0800
> >
> > audit: close a race condition on audit_sock
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/audit.c b/kernel/audit.c
> > index f1ca116..ab947d8 100644
> > --- a/kernel/audit.c
> > +++ b/kernel/audit.c
> > @@ -423,6 +423,8 @@ static void kauditd_send_skb(struct sk_buff *skb)
> > snprintf(s, sizeof(s), "audit_pid=%d reset", audit_pid);
> > audit_log_lost(s);
> > audit_pid = 0;
> > + audit_nlk_portid = 0;
> > + sock_put(audit_sock);
> > audit_sock = NULL;
> > } else {
> > pr_warn("re-scheduling(#%d) write to audit_pid=%d\n",
> > @@ -899,6 +901,9 @@ static int audit_receive_msg(struct sk_buff *skb, struct nlmsghdr *nlh)
> > audit_log_config_change("audit_pid", new_pid, audit_pid, 1);
> > audit_pid = new_pid;
> > audit_nlk_portid = NETLINK_CB(skb).portid;
> > + sock_hold(skb->sk);
> > + if (audit_sock)
> > + sock_put(audit_sock);
> > audit_sock = skb->sk;
> > }
> > if (s.mask & AUDIT_STATUS_RATE_LIMIT) {
> > @@ -1167,10 +1172,6 @@ static void __net_exit audit_net_exit(struct net *net)
> > {
> > struct audit_net *aunet = net_generic(net, audit_net_id);
> > struct sock *sock = aunet->nlsk;
> > - if (sock == audit_sock) {
> > - audit_pid = 0;
> > - audit_sock = NULL;
> > - }
>
> So how does this not leak memory leaving the sock refcount incremented
> by the registered audit daemon when that daemon shuts down normally?
Sorry, that should have been: How does it not leak if auditd exits
abnormally without sending a shutdown message, but no message is sent on
the queue to trigger an error before the net namespace exits?
> - RGB
- RGB
--
Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
Kernel Security Engineering, Base Operating Systems, Red Hat
Remote, Ottawa, Canada
Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-12-13 8:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20161129164859.GD26673@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
[not found] ` <CAM_iQpX_KBEpL1dCBNMgZQ-VQJM9nmsVdRPVK-Aen9k0gV3f0w@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <20161130045207.GE26673@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
2016-12-09 6:02 ` netlink: GPF in sock_sndtimeo Richard Guy Briggs
2016-12-09 6:57 ` Cong Wang
2016-12-09 11:01 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2016-12-10 4:13 ` Cong Wang
2016-12-10 7:40 ` Cong Wang
2016-12-12 10:07 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2016-12-13 7:51 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2016-12-13 8:28 ` Richard Guy Briggs [this message]
2016-12-12 10:02 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2016-12-12 10:03 ` [PATCH v2] audit: use proper refcount locking on audit_sock Richard Guy Briggs
2016-12-12 17:10 ` Paul Moore
2016-12-13 4:49 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2016-12-12 20:18 ` Paul Moore
2016-12-13 5:10 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2016-12-13 15:01 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2016-12-12 23:58 ` Cong Wang
2016-12-13 14:55 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2016-12-13 0:10 ` netlink: GPF in sock_sndtimeo Cong Wang
2016-12-13 10:52 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2016-12-14 0:17 ` Cong Wang
2016-12-14 4:17 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2016-12-13 15:03 ` [RFC PATCH v3] audit: use proper refcount locking on audit_sock Richard Guy Briggs
2016-12-13 20:50 ` Paul Moore
2016-12-14 0:19 ` Cong Wang
2016-12-14 4:00 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2016-12-14 5:36 ` Cong Wang
2016-12-09 10:49 ` netlink: GPF in sock_sndtimeo Dmitry Vyukov
[not found] ` <20161209114847.GX22655@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
[not found] ` <CACT4Y+ZsOXoQqVE4vhenb9fUJkwAbGL6wUZxGyaT2h7Cncbfog@mail.gmail.com>
2016-12-09 12:12 ` Richard Guy Briggs
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=20161213082820.GF1305@madcap2.tricolour.ca \
--to=rgb@redhat.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dvyukov@google.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=fw@strlen.de \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=johannes.berg@intel.com \
--cc=linux-audit@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=syzkaller@googlegroups.com \
--cc=xiyou.wangcong@gmail.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox