* [Question]: A non NULL req->sk in tcp_rtx_synack. Not a fastopen connection.
@ 2024-10-04 1:14 Martin KaFai Lau
2024-10-04 2:02 ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Martin KaFai Lau @ 2024-10-04 1:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Network Development; +Cc: Eric Dumazet, Jakub Kicinski, Kuniyuki Iwashima, bpf
Hi,
We are seeing a use-after-free from a bpf prog attached to
trace_tcp_retransmit_synack. The program passes the req->sk to the
bpf_sk_storage_get_tracing kernel helper which does check for null before using it.
fastopen is not used.
We got a kfence report on use-after-free (pasted at the end). It is running with
an older 6.4 kernel and we hardly hit this in production.
From the upstream code, del_timer_sync() should have been done by
inet_csk_reqsk_queue_drop() before "req->sk = child;" is assigned in
inet_csk_reqsk_queue_add(). My understanding is the req->rsk_timer should have
been stopped before the "req->sk = child;" assignment.
or there are cases that req->sk is not NULL in the reqsk_timer_handler()?
BUG: KFENCE: use-after-free read in bpf_sk_storage_get_tracing+0x2e/0x1b0
Use-after-free read at 0x00000000a891fb3a (in kfence-#1):
bpf_sk_storage_get_tracing+0x2e/0x1b0
bpf_prog_5ea3e95db6da0438_tcp_retransmit_synack+0x1d20/0x1dda
bpf_trace_run2+0x4c/0xc0
tcp_rtx_synack+0xf9/0x100
reqsk_timer_handler+0xda/0x3d0
run_timer_softirq+0x292/0x8a0
irq_exit_rcu+0xf5/0x320
sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x6d/0x80
asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x16/0x20
intel_idle_irq+0x5a/0xa0
cpuidle_enter_state+0x94/0x273
cpu_startup_entry+0x15e/0x260
start_secondary+0x8a/0x90
secondary_startup_64_no_verify+0xfa/0xfb
kfence-#1: 0x00000000a72cc7b6-0x00000000d97616d9, size=2376, cache=TCPv6
allocated by task 0 on cpu 9 at 260507.901592s:
sk_prot_alloc+0x35/0x140
sk_clone_lock+0x1f/0x3f0
inet_csk_clone_lock+0x15/0x160
tcp_create_openreq_child+0x1f/0x410
tcp_v6_syn_recv_sock+0x1da/0x700
tcp_check_req+0x1fb/0x510
tcp_v6_rcv+0x98b/0x1420
ipv6_list_rcv+0x2258/0x26e0
napi_complete_done+0x5b1/0x2990
mlx5e_napi_poll+0x2ae/0x8d0
net_rx_action+0x13e/0x590
irq_exit_rcu+0xf5/0x320
common_interrupt+0x80/0x90
asm_common_interrupt+0x22/0x40
cpuidle_enter_state+0xfb/0x273
cpu_startup_entry+0x15e/0x260
start_secondary+0x8a/0x90
secondary_startup_64_no_verify+0xfa/0xfb
freed by task 0 on cpu 9 at 260507.927527s:
rcu_core_si+0x4ff/0xf10
irq_exit_rcu+0xf5/0x320
sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x6d/0x80
asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x16/0x20
cpuidle_enter_state+0xfb/0x273
cpu_startup_entry+0x15e/0x260
start_secondary+0x8a/0x90
secondary_startup_64_no_verify+0xfa/0xfb
Thanks,
Martin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [Question]: A non NULL req->sk in tcp_rtx_synack. Not a fastopen connection.
2024-10-04 1:14 [Question]: A non NULL req->sk in tcp_rtx_synack. Not a fastopen connection Martin KaFai Lau
@ 2024-10-04 2:02 ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
2024-10-04 4:00 ` Martin KaFai Lau
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Kuniyuki Iwashima @ 2024-10-04 2:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: martin.lau; +Cc: bpf, edumazet, kuba, kuniyu, netdev
From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2024 18:14:09 -0700
> Hi,
>
> We are seeing a use-after-free from a bpf prog attached to
> trace_tcp_retransmit_synack. The program passes the req->sk to the
> bpf_sk_storage_get_tracing kernel helper which does check for null before using it.
>
> fastopen is not used.
>
> We got a kfence report on use-after-free (pasted at the end). It is running with
> an older 6.4 kernel and we hardly hit this in production.
>
> From the upstream code, del_timer_sync() should have been done by
> inet_csk_reqsk_queue_drop() before "req->sk = child;" is assigned in
> inet_csk_reqsk_queue_add(). My understanding is the req->rsk_timer should have
> been stopped before the "req->sk = child;" assignment.
There seems to be a small race window in reqsk_queue_unlink().
expire_timers() first calls detach_timer(, true), which marks the timer
as not pending, and then calls reqsk_timer_handler().
If reqsk_queue_unlink() calls timer_pending() just before expire_timers()
calls reqsk_timer_handler(), reqsk_queue_unlink() could miss
del_timer_sync() ?
---8<---
diff --git a/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c b/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c
index 2c5632d4fddb..4ba47ee6c9da 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c
@@ -1045,7 +1045,7 @@ static bool reqsk_queue_unlink(struct request_sock *req)
found = __sk_nulls_del_node_init_rcu(sk);
spin_unlock(lock);
}
- if (timer_pending(&req->rsk_timer) && del_timer_sync(&req->rsk_timer))
+ if (del_timer_sync(&req->rsk_timer))
reqsk_put(req);
return found;
}
---8<---
>
> or there are cases that req->sk is not NULL in the reqsk_timer_handler()?
>
> BUG: KFENCE: use-after-free read in bpf_sk_storage_get_tracing+0x2e/0x1b0
>
> Use-after-free read at 0x00000000a891fb3a (in kfence-#1):
> bpf_sk_storage_get_tracing+0x2e/0x1b0
> bpf_prog_5ea3e95db6da0438_tcp_retransmit_synack+0x1d20/0x1dda
> bpf_trace_run2+0x4c/0xc0
> tcp_rtx_synack+0xf9/0x100
> reqsk_timer_handler+0xda/0x3d0
> run_timer_softirq+0x292/0x8a0
> irq_exit_rcu+0xf5/0x320
> sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x6d/0x80
> asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x16/0x20
> intel_idle_irq+0x5a/0xa0
> cpuidle_enter_state+0x94/0x273
> cpu_startup_entry+0x15e/0x260
> start_secondary+0x8a/0x90
> secondary_startup_64_no_verify+0xfa/0xfb
>
> kfence-#1: 0x00000000a72cc7b6-0x00000000d97616d9, size=2376, cache=TCPv6
>
> allocated by task 0 on cpu 9 at 260507.901592s:
> sk_prot_alloc+0x35/0x140
> sk_clone_lock+0x1f/0x3f0
> inet_csk_clone_lock+0x15/0x160
> tcp_create_openreq_child+0x1f/0x410
> tcp_v6_syn_recv_sock+0x1da/0x700
> tcp_check_req+0x1fb/0x510
> tcp_v6_rcv+0x98b/0x1420
> ipv6_list_rcv+0x2258/0x26e0
> napi_complete_done+0x5b1/0x2990
> mlx5e_napi_poll+0x2ae/0x8d0
> net_rx_action+0x13e/0x590
> irq_exit_rcu+0xf5/0x320
> common_interrupt+0x80/0x90
> asm_common_interrupt+0x22/0x40
> cpuidle_enter_state+0xfb/0x273
> cpu_startup_entry+0x15e/0x260
> start_secondary+0x8a/0x90
> secondary_startup_64_no_verify+0xfa/0xfb
>
> freed by task 0 on cpu 9 at 260507.927527s:
> rcu_core_si+0x4ff/0xf10
> irq_exit_rcu+0xf5/0x320
> sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x6d/0x80
> asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x16/0x20
> cpuidle_enter_state+0xfb/0x273
> cpu_startup_entry+0x15e/0x260
> start_secondary+0x8a/0x90
> secondary_startup_64_no_verify+0xfa/0xfb
>
> Thanks,
> Martin
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [Question]: A non NULL req->sk in tcp_rtx_synack. Not a fastopen connection.
2024-10-04 2:02 ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
@ 2024-10-04 4:00 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2024-10-04 20:37 ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Martin KaFai Lau @ 2024-10-04 4:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kuniyuki Iwashima; +Cc: bpf, edumazet, kuba, netdev
On 10/3/24 7:02 PM, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>
> Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2024 18:14:09 -0700
>> Hi,
>>
>> We are seeing a use-after-free from a bpf prog attached to
>> trace_tcp_retransmit_synack. The program passes the req->sk to the
>> bpf_sk_storage_get_tracing kernel helper which does check for null before using it.
>>
>> fastopen is not used.
>>
>> We got a kfence report on use-after-free (pasted at the end). It is running with
>> an older 6.4 kernel and we hardly hit this in production.
>>
>> From the upstream code, del_timer_sync() should have been done by
>> inet_csk_reqsk_queue_drop() before "req->sk = child;" is assigned in
>> inet_csk_reqsk_queue_add(). My understanding is the req->rsk_timer should have
>> been stopped before the "req->sk = child;" assignment.
>
> There seems to be a small race window in reqsk_queue_unlink().
>
> expire_timers() first calls detach_timer(, true), which marks the timer
> as not pending, and then calls reqsk_timer_handler().
>
> If reqsk_queue_unlink() calls timer_pending() just before expire_timers()
> calls reqsk_timer_handler(), reqsk_queue_unlink() could miss
> del_timer_sync() ?
This seems to explain it. :)
Does it mean there is a chance that the reqsk_timer_handler() may rearm the
timer again and I guess only a few more synack will be sent in this case and
should be no harm?
>
> ---8<---
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c b/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c
> index 2c5632d4fddb..4ba47ee6c9da 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c
> @@ -1045,7 +1045,7 @@ static bool reqsk_queue_unlink(struct request_sock *req)
> found = __sk_nulls_del_node_init_rcu(sk);
> spin_unlock(lock);
> }
> - if (timer_pending(&req->rsk_timer) && del_timer_sync(&req->rsk_timer))
> + if (del_timer_sync(&req->rsk_timer))
It seems the reqsk_timer_handler() will also call reqsk_queue_unlink() through
inet_csk_reqsk_queue_drop_and_put(). Not sure if the reqsk_timer_handler() can
del_timer_sync() itself.
> reqsk_put(req);
> return found;
> }
> ---8<---
>
>
>>
>> or there are cases that req->sk is not NULL in the reqsk_timer_handler()?
>>
>> BUG: KFENCE: use-after-free read in bpf_sk_storage_get_tracing+0x2e/0x1b0
>>
>> Use-after-free read at 0x00000000a891fb3a (in kfence-#1):
>> bpf_sk_storage_get_tracing+0x2e/0x1b0
>> bpf_prog_5ea3e95db6da0438_tcp_retransmit_synack+0x1d20/0x1dda
>> bpf_trace_run2+0x4c/0xc0
>> tcp_rtx_synack+0xf9/0x100
>> reqsk_timer_handler+0xda/0x3d0
>> run_timer_softirq+0x292/0x8a0
>> irq_exit_rcu+0xf5/0x320
>> sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x6d/0x80
>> asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x16/0x20
>> intel_idle_irq+0x5a/0xa0
>> cpuidle_enter_state+0x94/0x273
>> cpu_startup_entry+0x15e/0x260
>> start_secondary+0x8a/0x90
>> secondary_startup_64_no_verify+0xfa/0xfb
>>
>> kfence-#1: 0x00000000a72cc7b6-0x00000000d97616d9, size=2376, cache=TCPv6
>>
>> allocated by task 0 on cpu 9 at 260507.901592s:
>> sk_prot_alloc+0x35/0x140
>> sk_clone_lock+0x1f/0x3f0
>> inet_csk_clone_lock+0x15/0x160
>> tcp_create_openreq_child+0x1f/0x410
>> tcp_v6_syn_recv_sock+0x1da/0x700
>> tcp_check_req+0x1fb/0x510
>> tcp_v6_rcv+0x98b/0x1420
>> ipv6_list_rcv+0x2258/0x26e0
>> napi_complete_done+0x5b1/0x2990
>> mlx5e_napi_poll+0x2ae/0x8d0
>> net_rx_action+0x13e/0x590
>> irq_exit_rcu+0xf5/0x320
>> common_interrupt+0x80/0x90
>> asm_common_interrupt+0x22/0x40
>> cpuidle_enter_state+0xfb/0x273
>> cpu_startup_entry+0x15e/0x260
>> start_secondary+0x8a/0x90
>> secondary_startup_64_no_verify+0xfa/0xfb
>>
>> freed by task 0 on cpu 9 at 260507.927527s:
>> rcu_core_si+0x4ff/0xf10
>> irq_exit_rcu+0xf5/0x320
>> sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x6d/0x80
>> asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x16/0x20
>> cpuidle_enter_state+0xfb/0x273
>> cpu_startup_entry+0x15e/0x260
>> start_secondary+0x8a/0x90
>> secondary_startup_64_no_verify+0xfa/0xfb
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Martin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [Question]: A non NULL req->sk in tcp_rtx_synack. Not a fastopen connection.
2024-10-04 4:00 ` Martin KaFai Lau
@ 2024-10-04 20:37 ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Kuniyuki Iwashima @ 2024-10-04 20:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: martin.lau; +Cc: bpf, edumazet, kuba, kuniyu, netdev
From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2024 21:00:20 -0700
> On 10/3/24 7:02 PM, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> > From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>
> > Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2024 18:14:09 -0700
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> We are seeing a use-after-free from a bpf prog attached to
> >> trace_tcp_retransmit_synack. The program passes the req->sk to the
> >> bpf_sk_storage_get_tracing kernel helper which does check for null before using it.
> >>
> >> fastopen is not used.
> >>
> >> We got a kfence report on use-after-free (pasted at the end). It is running with
> >> an older 6.4 kernel and we hardly hit this in production.
> >>
> >> From the upstream code, del_timer_sync() should have been done by
> >> inet_csk_reqsk_queue_drop() before "req->sk = child;" is assigned in
> >> inet_csk_reqsk_queue_add(). My understanding is the req->rsk_timer should have
> >> been stopped before the "req->sk = child;" assignment.
> >
> > There seems to be a small race window in reqsk_queue_unlink().
> >
> > expire_timers() first calls detach_timer(, true), which marks the timer
> > as not pending, and then calls reqsk_timer_handler().
> >
> > If reqsk_queue_unlink() calls timer_pending() just before expire_timers()
> > calls reqsk_timer_handler(), reqsk_queue_unlink() could miss
> > del_timer_sync() ?
>
> This seems to explain it. :)
>
> Does it mean there is a chance that the reqsk_timer_handler() may rearm the
> timer again and I guess only a few more synack will be sent in this case and
> should be no harm?
Ah, it seems possible. I was wondering how the timer can be delayed
until sk is freed. In such a case, the timer will just let the peer
generate some challenge ACKs.
>
> >
> > ---8<---
> > diff --git a/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c b/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c
> > index 2c5632d4fddb..4ba47ee6c9da 100644
> > --- a/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c
> > +++ b/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c
> > @@ -1045,7 +1045,7 @@ static bool reqsk_queue_unlink(struct request_sock *req)
> > found = __sk_nulls_del_node_init_rcu(sk);
> > spin_unlock(lock);
> > }
> > - if (timer_pending(&req->rsk_timer) && del_timer_sync(&req->rsk_timer))
> > + if (del_timer_sync(&req->rsk_timer))
>
> It seems the reqsk_timer_handler() will also call reqsk_queue_unlink() through
> inet_csk_reqsk_queue_drop_and_put(). Not sure if the reqsk_timer_handler() can
> del_timer_sync() itself.
Exactly, it seems illegal to call it from the timer.
Then, we need a variant of inet_csk_reqsk_queue_drop() to see if
the caller is tiemr or not. (compile-test only)
---8<---
diff --git a/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c b/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c
index 2c5632d4fddb..2623964d8817 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c
@@ -1045,21 +1045,31 @@ static bool reqsk_queue_unlink(struct request_sock *req)
found = __sk_nulls_del_node_init_rcu(sk);
spin_unlock(lock);
}
- if (timer_pending(&req->rsk_timer) && del_timer_sync(&req->rsk_timer))
- reqsk_put(req);
+
return found;
}
-bool inet_csk_reqsk_queue_drop(struct sock *sk, struct request_sock *req)
+static bool __inet_csk_reqsk_queue_drop(struct sock *sk,
+ struct request_sock *req,
+ bool from_timer)
{
bool unlinked = reqsk_queue_unlink(req);
+ if (!from_timer && del_timer_sync(&req->rsk_timer))
+ reqsk_put(req);
+
if (unlinked) {
reqsk_queue_removed(&inet_csk(sk)->icsk_accept_queue, req);
reqsk_put(req);
}
+
return unlinked;
}
+
+bool inet_csk_reqsk_queue_drop(struct sock *sk, struct request_sock *req)
+{
+ return __inet_csk_reqsk_queue_drop(sk, req, false);
+}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(inet_csk_reqsk_queue_drop);
void inet_csk_reqsk_queue_drop_and_put(struct sock *sk, struct request_sock *req)
@@ -1152,7 +1162,7 @@ static void reqsk_timer_handler(struct timer_list *t)
if (!inet_ehash_insert(req_to_sk(nreq), req_to_sk(oreq), NULL)) {
/* delete timer */
- inet_csk_reqsk_queue_drop(sk_listener, nreq);
+ __inet_csk_reqsk_queue_drop(sk_listener, nreq, true);
goto no_ownership;
}
@@ -1178,7 +1188,8 @@ static void reqsk_timer_handler(struct timer_list *t)
}
drop:
- inet_csk_reqsk_queue_drop_and_put(oreq->rsk_listener, oreq);
+ __inet_csk_reqsk_queue_drop(sk_listener, nreq, true);
+ reqsk_put(req);
}
static bool reqsk_queue_hash_req(struct request_sock *req,
---8<---
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-10-04 20:37 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2024-10-04 1:14 [Question]: A non NULL req->sk in tcp_rtx_synack. Not a fastopen connection Martin KaFai Lau
2024-10-04 2:02 ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
2024-10-04 4:00 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2024-10-04 20:37 ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).