From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] sctp: suspicious rcu_read_lock() in sctp_packet_config()
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 15:01:32 -0200
Message-ID: <20171017170132.GC5357@localhost.localdomain>
References: <1508247956.31614.103.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
 <CADvbK_dRBaOLzrXWS2ndHu3sz9LB87rJsyGog2BjishapiMhxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171017162826.GB5357@localhost.localdomain>
 <CANn89iKMBKJyLpdnUEER=9ot89P8yr4F0DGJABh1O=DCixdR8g@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
        Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@gmail.com>,
        Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, Wei Wang <weiwan@google.com>,
        linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:40168 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S934156AbdJQRBf (ORCPT <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 17 Oct 2017 13:01:35 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CANn89iKMBKJyLpdnUEER=9ot89P8yr4F0DGJABh1O=DCixdR8g@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 09:44:10AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
> <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 11:31:30PM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
> >> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 9:45 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > SCTP experts.
> >> >
> >> > syszkaller reported a few crashes in sctp_packet_config() with invalid
> >> > access to a deleted dst.
> >> >
> >> > The rcu_read_lock() in sctp_packet_config() is suspect.
> >> >
> >> > It does not protect anything at the moment.
> >> >
> >> > If we expect tp->dst to be manipulated/changed by another cpu/thread,
> >> > then we need proper rcu protection.
> >> >
> >> > Following patch to show what would be a minimal change (but obviously
> >> > bigger changes are needed, like sctp_transport_pmtu_check() and
> >> > sctp_transport_dst_check(), and proper sparse annotations)
> >> will check all places accessing tp->dst in sctp.
> >
> > I checked some and sctp_transport_dst_check() should be fine because
> > by then we are holding a reference on dst. Same goes to
> > sctp_transport_pmtu_check().
> 
> Really ?
> 

Yes,

> What about sctp_v4_err() -> sctp_icmp_redirect() -> sctp_transport_dst_check()
> 
> It seems quite possible that the BH handler can access it, while
> socket is owned by user.

hidden here:
sctp_v4_err() {
...
        sk = sctp_err_lookup(net, AF_INET, skb, sctp_hdr(skb), &asoc,
	&transport);
...
out_unlock:
        sctp_err_finish(sk, transport);
}

sctp_err_lookup() {
...
        bh_lock_sock(sk);

        /* If too many ICMPs get dropped on busy
         * servers this needs to be solved differently.
         */
        if (sock_owned_by_user(sk))            [A]
                __NET_INC_STATS(net, LINUX_MIB_LOCKDROPPEDICMPS);

        *app = asoc;
        *tpp = transport;
        return sk;
...
}

Though that if() on [A] should be bailing out without returning
nothing. That's a bug. More like:

        if (sock_owned_by_user(sk)) {
                __NET_INC_STATS(net, LINUX_MIB_LOCKDROPPEDICMPS);
		goto out;
	}