Re: [Patch net, v2] net: xfrm: skip policies marked as dead while reinserting policies

[Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>]

On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 10:00:13PM +0800, Dong Chenchen wrote:
> BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in xfrm_policy_inexact_list_reinsert+0xb6/0x430
> Read of size 1 at addr ffff8881051f3bf8 by task ip/668
> 
> CPU: 2 PID: 668 Comm: ip Not tainted 6.5.0-rc5-00182-g25aa0bebba72-dirty #64
> Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.13 04/01/2014
> Call Trace:
>  <TASK>
>  dump_stack_lvl+0x72/0xa0
>  print_report+0xd0/0x620
>  kasan_report+0xb6/0xf0
>  xfrm_policy_inexact_list_reinsert+0xb6/0x430
>  xfrm_policy_inexact_insert_node.constprop.0+0x537/0x800
>  xfrm_policy_inexact_alloc_chain+0x23f/0x320
>  xfrm_policy_inexact_insert+0x6b/0x590
>  xfrm_policy_insert+0x3b1/0x480
>  xfrm_add_policy+0x23c/0x3c0
>  xfrm_user_rcv_msg+0x2d0/0x510
>  netlink_rcv_skb+0x10d/0x2d0
>  xfrm_netlink_rcv+0x49/0x60
>  netlink_unicast+0x3fe/0x540
>  netlink_sendmsg+0x528/0x970
>  sock_sendmsg+0x14a/0x160
>  ____sys_sendmsg+0x4fc/0x580
>  ___sys_sendmsg+0xef/0x160
>  __sys_sendmsg+0xf7/0x1b0
>  do_syscall_64+0x3f/0x90
>  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x73/0xdd
> 
> The root cause is:
> 
> cpu 0			cpu1
> xfrm_dump_policy
> xfrm_policy_walk
> list_move_tail
> 			xfrm_add_policy
> 			... ...
> 			xfrm_policy_inexact_list_reinsert
> 			list_for_each_entry_reverse
> 				if (!policy->bydst_reinsert)
> 				//read non-existent policy
> xfrm_dump_policy_done
> xfrm_policy_walk_done
> list_del(&walk->walk.all);
> 
> If dump_one_policy() returns err (triggered by netlink socket),
> xfrm_policy_walk() will move walk initialized by socket to list
> net->xfrm.policy_all. so this socket becomes visible in the global
> policy list. The head *walk can be traversed when users add policies
> with different prefixlen and trigger xfrm_policy node merge.
> 
> The issue can also be triggered by policy list traversal while rehashing
> and flushing policies.
> 
> It can be fixed by skip such "policies" with walk.dead set to 1.
> 
> Fixes: 9cf545ebd591 ("xfrm: policy: store inexact policies in a tree ordered by destination address")
> Fixes: 12a169e7d8f4 ("ipsec: Put dumpers on the dump list")
> Signed-off-by: Dong Chenchen <dongchenchen2@huawei.com>
> ---
> v2: fix similiar similar while rehashing and flushing policies
> ---
>  net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c | 20 +++++++++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
> index d6b405782b63..33efd46fb291 100644
> --- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
> +++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
> @@ -848,6 +848,9 @@ static void xfrm_policy_inexact_list_reinsert(struct net *net,
>  	matched_d = 0;
>  
>  	list_for_each_entry_reverse(policy, &net->xfrm.policy_all, walk.all) {
> +		if (policy->walk.dead)
> +			continue;
> +
>  		struct hlist_node *newpos = NULL;
>  		bool matches_s, matches_d;

You can't declare new variables in the middle of execution scope in C.

>  
> @@ -1253,11 +1256,14 @@ static void xfrm_hash_rebuild(struct work_struct *work)
>  	 * we start with destructive action.
>  	 */
>  	list_for_each_entry(policy, &net->xfrm.policy_all, walk.all) {
> +		if (policy->walk.dead)
> +			continue;
> +
>  		struct xfrm_pol_inexact_bin *bin;
>  		u8 dbits, sbits;

Same comment as above.

>  
>  		dir = xfrm_policy_id2dir(policy->index);
> -		if (policy->walk.dead || dir >= XFRM_POLICY_MAX)
> +		if (dir >= XFRM_POLICY_MAX)

This change is unnecessary, previous code was perfectly fine.

>  			continue;
>  
>  		if ((dir & XFRM_POLICY_MASK) == XFRM_POLICY_OUT) {
> @@ -1823,9 +1829,11 @@ int xfrm_policy_flush(struct net *net, u8 type, bool task_valid)
>  
>  again:
>  	list_for_each_entry(pol, &net->xfrm.policy_all, walk.all) {
> +		if (pol->walk.dead)
> +			continue;
> +
>  		dir = xfrm_policy_id2dir(pol->index);
> -		if (pol->walk.dead ||
> -		    dir >= XFRM_POLICY_MAX ||
> +		if (dir >= XFRM_POLICY_MAX ||

This change is unnecessary, previous code was perfectly fine.

>  		    pol->type != type)
>  			continue;
>  
> @@ -1862,9 +1870,11 @@ int xfrm_dev_policy_flush(struct net *net, struct net_device *dev,
>  
>  again:
>  	list_for_each_entry(pol, &net->xfrm.policy_all, walk.all) {
> +		if (pol->walk.dead)
> +			continue;
> +
>  		dir = xfrm_policy_id2dir(pol->index);
> -		if (pol->walk.dead ||
> -		    dir >= XFRM_POLICY_MAX ||
> +		if (dir >= XFRM_POLICY_MAX ||
>  		    pol->xdo.dev != dev)
>  			continue;

Ditto.

>  
> -- 
> 2.25.1
>