Re: [PATCH net] page_pool: Fix use-after-free in page_pool_recycle_in_ring

["dongchenchen (A)" <dongchenchen2@huawei.com>]

> )
>
> On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 7:47 AM dongchenchen (A)
> <dongchenchen2@huawei.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 1:31 AM Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2025/5/23 14:45, Dong Chenchen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>    static bool page_pool_recycle_in_ring(struct page_pool *pool, netmem_ref netmem)
>>>>>    {
>>>>> +     bool in_softirq;
>>>>>         int ret;
>>>> int -> bool?
>>>>
>>>>>         /* BH protection not needed if current is softirq */
>>>>> -     if (in_softirq())
>>>>> -             ret = ptr_ring_produce(&pool->ring, (__force void *)netmem);
>>>>> -     else
>>>>> -             ret = ptr_ring_produce_bh(&pool->ring, (__force void *)netmem);
>>>>> -
>>>>> -     if (!ret) {
>>>>> +     in_softirq = page_pool_producer_lock(pool);
>>>>> +     ret = !__ptr_ring_produce(&pool->ring, (__force void *)netmem);
>>>>> +     if (ret)
>>>>>                 recycle_stat_inc(pool, ring);
>>>>> -             return true;
>>>>> -     }
>>>>> +     page_pool_producer_unlock(pool, in_softirq);
>>>>>
>>>>> -     return false;
>>>>> +     return ret;
>>>>>    }
>>>>>
>>>>>    /* Only allow direct recycling in special circumstances, into the
>>>>> @@ -1091,10 +1088,14 @@ static void page_pool_scrub(struct page_pool *pool)
>>>>>
>>>>>    static int page_pool_release(struct page_pool *pool)
>>>>>    {
>>>>> +     bool in_softirq;
>>>>>         int inflight;
>>>>>
>>>>>         page_pool_scrub(pool);
>>>>>         inflight = page_pool_inflight(pool, true);
>>>>> +     /* Acquire producer lock to make sure producers have exited. */
>>>>> +     in_softirq = page_pool_producer_lock(pool);
>>>>> +     page_pool_producer_unlock(pool, in_softirq);
>>>> Is a compiler barrier needed to ensure compiler doesn't optimize away
>>>> the above code?
>>>>
>>> I don't want to derail this conversation too much, and I suggested a
>>> similar fix to this initially, but now I'm not sure I understand why
>>> it works.
>>>
>>> Why is the existing barrier not working and acquiring/releasing the
>>> producer lock fixes this issue instead? The existing barrier is the
>>> producer thread incrementing pool->pages_state_release_cnt, and
>>> page_pool_release() is supposed to block the freeing of the page_pool
>>> until it sees the
>>> `atomic_inc_return_relaxed(&pool->pages_state_release_cnt);` from the
>>> producer thread. Any idea why this barrier is not working? AFAIU it
>>> should do the exact same thing as acquiring/dropping the producer
>>> lock.
>> Hi, Mina
>> As previously mentioned:
>> page_pool_recycle_in_ring
>>     ptr_ring_produce
>>       spin_lock(&r->producer_lock);
>>       WRITE_ONCE(r->queue[r->producer++], ptr)
>>         //recycle last page to pool, producer + release_cnt = hold_cnt
> This is not right. release_cnt != hold_cnt at this point.

Hi,Mina!
Thanks for your review!
release_cnt != hold_cnt at this point. producer inc r->producer
and release_cnt will be incremented by page_pool_empty_ring() in
page_pool_release().

> Release_cnt is only incremented by the producer _after_ the
> spin_unlock and the recycle_stat_inc have been done. The full call
> stack on the producer thread:
>
> page_pool_put_unrefed_netmem
>      page_pool_recycle_in_ring
>          ptr_ring_produce(&pool->ring, (__force void *)netmem);
>               spin_lock(&r->producer_lock);
>               __ptr_ring_produce(r, ptr);
>               spin_unlock(&r->producer_lock);
>          recycle_stat_inc(pool, ring);

If page_ring is not full, page_pool_recycle_in_ring will return true.
The release cnt will be incremented by page_pool_empty_ring() in
page_pool_release(), and the code as below will not be executed.

page_pool_put_unrefed_netmem
   if (!page_pool_recycle_in_ring(pool, netmem)) //return true
       page_pool_return_page(pool, netmem);

Best Regards,
Dong Chenchen

>      recycle_stat_inc(pool, ring_full);
>      page_pool_return_page
>          atomic_inc_return_relaxed(&pool->pages_state_release_cnt);
>
> The atomic_inc_return_relaxed happens after all the lines that could
> cause UAF are already executed. Is it because we're using the _relaxed
> version of the atomic operation, that the compiler can reorder it to
> happen before the spin_unlock(&r->producer_lock) and before the
> recycle_stat_inc...?
>