[PATCH net] sctp: add mutual exclusion in proc_sctp_do_udp_port()

[PATCH net] sctp: add mutual exclusion in proc_sctp_do_udp_port()

[Eric Dumazet]

We must serialize calls to sctp_udp_sock_stop() and sctp_udp_sock_start()
or risk a crash as syzbot reported:

Oops: general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0xdffffc000000000d: 0000 [#1] SMP KASAN PTI
KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x0000000000000068-0x000000000000006f]
CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 6551 Comm: syz.1.44 Not tainted 6.14.0-syzkaller-g7f2ff7b62617 #0 PREEMPT(full)
Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 02/12/2025
 RIP: 0010:kernel_sock_shutdown+0x47/0x70 net/socket.c:3653
Call Trace:
 <TASK>
  udp_tunnel_sock_release+0x68/0x80 net/ipv4/udp_tunnel_core.c:181
  sctp_udp_sock_stop+0x71/0x160 net/sctp/protocol.c:930
  proc_sctp_do_udp_port+0x264/0x450 net/sctp/sysctl.c:553
  proc_sys_call_handler+0x3d0/0x5b0 fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c:601
  iter_file_splice_write+0x91c/0x1150 fs/splice.c:738
  do_splice_from fs/splice.c:935 [inline]
  direct_splice_actor+0x18f/0x6c0 fs/splice.c:1158
  splice_direct_to_actor+0x342/0xa30 fs/splice.c:1102
  do_splice_direct_actor fs/splice.c:1201 [inline]
  do_splice_direct+0x174/0x240 fs/splice.c:1227
  do_sendfile+0xafd/0xe50 fs/read_write.c:1368
  __do_sys_sendfile64 fs/read_write.c:1429 [inline]
  __se_sys_sendfile64 fs/read_write.c:1415 [inline]
  __x64_sys_sendfile64+0x1d8/0x220 fs/read_write.c:1415
  do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:63 [inline]

Fixes: 046c052b475e ("sctp: enable udp tunneling socks")
Reported-by: syzbot+fae49d997eb56fa7c74d@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/67ea5c01.050a0220.1547ec.012b.GAE@google.com/T/#u
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Cc: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>
Cc: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>
---
 net/sctp/sysctl.c | 4 ++++
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/net/sctp/sysctl.c b/net/sctp/sysctl.c
index 8e1e97be4df79f3245e2bbbeb0a75841abc67f58..ee3eac338a9deef064f273e29bb59b057835d3f1 100644
--- a/net/sctp/sysctl.c
+++ b/net/sctp/sysctl.c
@@ -525,6 +525,8 @@ static int proc_sctp_do_auth(const struct ctl_table *ctl, int write,
 	return ret;
 }
 
+static DEFINE_MUTEX(sctp_sysctl_mutex);
+
 static int proc_sctp_do_udp_port(const struct ctl_table *ctl, int write,
 				 void *buffer, size_t *lenp, loff_t *ppos)
 {
@@ -549,6 +551,7 @@ static int proc_sctp_do_udp_port(const struct ctl_table *ctl, int write,
 		if (new_value > max || new_value < min)
 			return -EINVAL;
 
+		mutex_lock(&sctp_sysctl_mutex);
 		net->sctp.udp_port = new_value;
 		sctp_udp_sock_stop(net);
 		if (new_value) {
@@ -561,6 +564,7 @@ static int proc_sctp_do_udp_port(const struct ctl_table *ctl, int write,
 		lock_sock(sk);
 		sctp_sk(sk)->udp_port = htons(net->sctp.udp_port);
 		release_sock(sk);
+		mutex_unlock(&sctp_sysctl_mutex);
 	}
 
 	return ret;
-- 
2.49.0.472.ge94155a9ec-goog

Re: [PATCH net] sctp: add mutual exclusion in proc_sctp_do_udp_port()

[Xin Long]

On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 5:15 AM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:
>
> We must serialize calls to sctp_udp_sock_stop() and sctp_udp_sock_start()
> or risk a crash as syzbot reported:
>
> Oops: general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0xdffffc000000000d: 0000 [#1] SMP KASAN PTI
> KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x0000000000000068-0x000000000000006f]
> CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 6551 Comm: syz.1.44 Not tainted 6.14.0-syzkaller-g7f2ff7b62617 #0 PREEMPT(full)
> Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 02/12/2025
>  RIP: 0010:kernel_sock_shutdown+0x47/0x70 net/socket.c:3653
> Call Trace:
>  <TASK>
>   udp_tunnel_sock_release+0x68/0x80 net/ipv4/udp_tunnel_core.c:181
>   sctp_udp_sock_stop+0x71/0x160 net/sctp/protocol.c:930
>   proc_sctp_do_udp_port+0x264/0x450 net/sctp/sysctl.c:553
>   proc_sys_call_handler+0x3d0/0x5b0 fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c:601
>   iter_file_splice_write+0x91c/0x1150 fs/splice.c:738
>   do_splice_from fs/splice.c:935 [inline]
>   direct_splice_actor+0x18f/0x6c0 fs/splice.c:1158
>   splice_direct_to_actor+0x342/0xa30 fs/splice.c:1102
>   do_splice_direct_actor fs/splice.c:1201 [inline]
>   do_splice_direct+0x174/0x240 fs/splice.c:1227
>   do_sendfile+0xafd/0xe50 fs/read_write.c:1368
>   __do_sys_sendfile64 fs/read_write.c:1429 [inline]
>   __se_sys_sendfile64 fs/read_write.c:1415 [inline]
>   __x64_sys_sendfile64+0x1d8/0x220 fs/read_write.c:1415
>   do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:63 [inline]
>
> Fixes: 046c052b475e ("sctp: enable udp tunneling socks")
> Reported-by: syzbot+fae49d997eb56fa7c74d@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/67ea5c01.050a0220.1547ec.012b.GAE@google.com/T/#u
> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
> Cc: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>
> Cc: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>
> ---
>  net/sctp/sysctl.c | 4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/net/sctp/sysctl.c b/net/sctp/sysctl.c
> index 8e1e97be4df79f3245e2bbbeb0a75841abc67f58..ee3eac338a9deef064f273e29bb59b057835d3f1 100644
> --- a/net/sctp/sysctl.c
> +++ b/net/sctp/sysctl.c
> @@ -525,6 +525,8 @@ static int proc_sctp_do_auth(const struct ctl_table *ctl, int write,
>         return ret;
>  }
>
> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(sctp_sysctl_mutex);
> +
>  static int proc_sctp_do_udp_port(const struct ctl_table *ctl, int write,
>                                  void *buffer, size_t *lenp, loff_t *ppos)
>  {
> @@ -549,6 +551,7 @@ static int proc_sctp_do_udp_port(const struct ctl_table *ctl, int write,
>                 if (new_value > max || new_value < min)
>                         return -EINVAL;
>
> +               mutex_lock(&sctp_sysctl_mutex);
>                 net->sctp.udp_port = new_value;
>                 sctp_udp_sock_stop(net);
>                 if (new_value) {
> @@ -561,6 +564,7 @@ static int proc_sctp_do_udp_port(const struct ctl_table *ctl, int write,
>                 lock_sock(sk);
>                 sctp_sk(sk)->udp_port = htons(net->sctp.udp_port);
>                 release_sock(sk);
> +               mutex_unlock(&sctp_sysctl_mutex);
>         }
>
>         return ret;
> --
> 2.49.0.472.ge94155a9ec-goog
>
Instead of introducing a new lock for this, wouldn't be better to just
move up `lock_sock(sk)` a little bit?

Re: [PATCH net] sctp: add mutual exclusion in proc_sctp_do_udp_port()

[Eric Dumazet]

On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 5:54 PM Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 5:15 AM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > We must serialize calls to sctp_udp_sock_stop() and sctp_udp_sock_start()
> > or risk a crash as syzbot reported:
> >
> > Oops: general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0xdffffc000000000d: 0000 [#1] SMP KASAN PTI
> > KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x0000000000000068-0x000000000000006f]
> > CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 6551 Comm: syz.1.44 Not tainted 6.14.0-syzkaller-g7f2ff7b62617 #0 PREEMPT(full)
> > Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 02/12/2025
> >  RIP: 0010:kernel_sock_shutdown+0x47/0x70 net/socket.c:3653
> > Call Trace:
> >  <TASK>
> >   udp_tunnel_sock_release+0x68/0x80 net/ipv4/udp_tunnel_core.c:181
> >   sctp_udp_sock_stop+0x71/0x160 net/sctp/protocol.c:930
> >   proc_sctp_do_udp_port+0x264/0x450 net/sctp/sysctl.c:553
> >   proc_sys_call_handler+0x3d0/0x5b0 fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c:601
> >   iter_file_splice_write+0x91c/0x1150 fs/splice.c:738
> >   do_splice_from fs/splice.c:935 [inline]
> >   direct_splice_actor+0x18f/0x6c0 fs/splice.c:1158
> >   splice_direct_to_actor+0x342/0xa30 fs/splice.c:1102
> >   do_splice_direct_actor fs/splice.c:1201 [inline]
> >   do_splice_direct+0x174/0x240 fs/splice.c:1227
> >   do_sendfile+0xafd/0xe50 fs/read_write.c:1368
> >   __do_sys_sendfile64 fs/read_write.c:1429 [inline]
> >   __se_sys_sendfile64 fs/read_write.c:1415 [inline]
> >   __x64_sys_sendfile64+0x1d8/0x220 fs/read_write.c:1415
> >   do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:63 [inline]
> >
> > Fixes: 046c052b475e ("sctp: enable udp tunneling socks")
> > Reported-by: syzbot+fae49d997eb56fa7c74d@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/67ea5c01.050a0220.1547ec.012b.GAE@google.com/T/#u
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
> > Cc: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>
> > Cc: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  net/sctp/sysctl.c | 4 ++++
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/sctp/sysctl.c b/net/sctp/sysctl.c
> > index 8e1e97be4df79f3245e2bbbeb0a75841abc67f58..ee3eac338a9deef064f273e29bb59b057835d3f1 100644
> > --- a/net/sctp/sysctl.c
> > +++ b/net/sctp/sysctl.c
> > @@ -525,6 +525,8 @@ static int proc_sctp_do_auth(const struct ctl_table *ctl, int write,
> >         return ret;
> >  }
> >
> > +static DEFINE_MUTEX(sctp_sysctl_mutex);
> > +
> >  static int proc_sctp_do_udp_port(const struct ctl_table *ctl, int write,
> >                                  void *buffer, size_t *lenp, loff_t *ppos)
> >  {
> > @@ -549,6 +551,7 @@ static int proc_sctp_do_udp_port(const struct ctl_table *ctl, int write,
> >                 if (new_value > max || new_value < min)
> >                         return -EINVAL;
> >
> > +               mutex_lock(&sctp_sysctl_mutex);
> >                 net->sctp.udp_port = new_value;
> >                 sctp_udp_sock_stop(net);
> >                 if (new_value) {
> > @@ -561,6 +564,7 @@ static int proc_sctp_do_udp_port(const struct ctl_table *ctl, int write,
> >                 lock_sock(sk);
> >                 sctp_sk(sk)->udp_port = htons(net->sctp.udp_port);
> >                 release_sock(sk);
> > +               mutex_unlock(&sctp_sysctl_mutex);
> >         }
> >
> >         return ret;
> > --
> > 2.49.0.472.ge94155a9ec-goog
> >
> Instead of introducing a new lock for this, wouldn't be better to just
> move up `lock_sock(sk)` a little bit?

It depends if calling synchronize_rcu() two times while holding the
socket lock is ok or not ?

What is the issue about using a separate mutex ?

Re: [PATCH net] sctp: add mutual exclusion in proc_sctp_do_udp_port()

[David Laight]

On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:11:38 +0200
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 5:54 PM Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 5:15 AM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:  
> > >
> > > We must serialize calls to sctp_udp_sock_stop() and sctp_udp_sock_start()
> > > or risk a crash as syzbot reported:
> > >
> > > Oops: general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0xdffffc000000000d: 0000 [#1] SMP KASAN PTI
> > > KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x0000000000000068-0x000000000000006f]
> > > CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 6551 Comm: syz.1.44 Not tainted 6.14.0-syzkaller-g7f2ff7b62617 #0 PREEMPT(full)
> > > Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 02/12/2025
> > >  RIP: 0010:kernel_sock_shutdown+0x47/0x70 net/socket.c:3653
> > > Call Trace:
> > >  <TASK>
> > >   udp_tunnel_sock_release+0x68/0x80 net/ipv4/udp_tunnel_core.c:181
> > >   sctp_udp_sock_stop+0x71/0x160 net/sctp/protocol.c:930
> > >   proc_sctp_do_udp_port+0x264/0x450 net/sctp/sysctl.c:553
> > >   proc_sys_call_handler+0x3d0/0x5b0 fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c:601
> > >   iter_file_splice_write+0x91c/0x1150 fs/splice.c:738
> > >   do_splice_from fs/splice.c:935 [inline]
> > >   direct_splice_actor+0x18f/0x6c0 fs/splice.c:1158
> > >   splice_direct_to_actor+0x342/0xa30 fs/splice.c:1102
> > >   do_splice_direct_actor fs/splice.c:1201 [inline]
> > >   do_splice_direct+0x174/0x240 fs/splice.c:1227
> > >   do_sendfile+0xafd/0xe50 fs/read_write.c:1368
> > >   __do_sys_sendfile64 fs/read_write.c:1429 [inline]
> > >   __se_sys_sendfile64 fs/read_write.c:1415 [inline]
> > >   __x64_sys_sendfile64+0x1d8/0x220 fs/read_write.c:1415
> > >   do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:63 [inline]
> > >
> > > Fixes: 046c052b475e ("sctp: enable udp tunneling socks")
> > > Reported-by: syzbot+fae49d997eb56fa7c74d@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> > > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/67ea5c01.050a0220.1547ec.012b.GAE@google.com/T/#u
> > > Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
> > > Cc: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>
> > > Cc: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > >  net/sctp/sysctl.c | 4 ++++
> > >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/net/sctp/sysctl.c b/net/sctp/sysctl.c
> > > index 8e1e97be4df79f3245e2bbbeb0a75841abc67f58..ee3eac338a9deef064f273e29bb59b057835d3f1 100644
> > > --- a/net/sctp/sysctl.c
> > > +++ b/net/sctp/sysctl.c
> > > @@ -525,6 +525,8 @@ static int proc_sctp_do_auth(const struct ctl_table *ctl, int write,
> > >         return ret;
> > >  }
> > >
> > > +static DEFINE_MUTEX(sctp_sysctl_mutex);
> > > +
> > >  static int proc_sctp_do_udp_port(const struct ctl_table *ctl, int write,
> > >                                  void *buffer, size_t *lenp, loff_t *ppos)
> > >  {
> > > @@ -549,6 +551,7 @@ static int proc_sctp_do_udp_port(const struct ctl_table *ctl, int write,
> > >                 if (new_value > max || new_value < min)
> > >                         return -EINVAL;
> > >
> > > +               mutex_lock(&sctp_sysctl_mutex);
> > >                 net->sctp.udp_port = new_value;
> > >                 sctp_udp_sock_stop(net);
> > >                 if (new_value) {
> > > @@ -561,6 +564,7 @@ static int proc_sctp_do_udp_port(const struct ctl_table *ctl, int write,
> > >                 lock_sock(sk);
> > >                 sctp_sk(sk)->udp_port = htons(net->sctp.udp_port);
> > >                 release_sock(sk);
> > > +               mutex_unlock(&sctp_sysctl_mutex);
> > >         }
> > >
> > >         return ret;
> > > --
> > > 2.49.0.472.ge94155a9ec-goog
> > >  
> > Instead of introducing a new lock for this, wouldn't be better to just
> > move up `lock_sock(sk)` a little bit?  
> 
> It depends if calling synchronize_rcu() two times while holding the
> socket lock is ok or not ?
> 
> What is the issue about using a separate mutex ?
> 

Don't they need locking against a different path that is using the socket?
Not only against concurrent accesses to the sysctl?

Presuming the crash was because of the net->sctp.udp4_sock = NULL
assignment in sock_stop(), if 'min' is zero allowing 'new_value' zero
then the pointer is left NULL.

IIRC sctp_sk(sk) is fixed, so the sock_lock() doesn't do much apart
from stop some unlikely 'data tearing'.

	David

Re: [PATCH net] sctp: add mutual exclusion in proc_sctp_do_udp_port()

[Xin Long]

On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 12:11 PM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 5:54 PM Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 5:15 AM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > We must serialize calls to sctp_udp_sock_stop() and sctp_udp_sock_start()
> > > or risk a crash as syzbot reported:
> > >
> > > Oops: general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0xdffffc000000000d: 0000 [#1] SMP KASAN PTI
> > > KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x0000000000000068-0x000000000000006f]
> > > CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 6551 Comm: syz.1.44 Not tainted 6.14.0-syzkaller-g7f2ff7b62617 #0 PREEMPT(full)
> > > Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 02/12/2025
> > >  RIP: 0010:kernel_sock_shutdown+0x47/0x70 net/socket.c:3653
> > > Call Trace:
> > >  <TASK>
> > >   udp_tunnel_sock_release+0x68/0x80 net/ipv4/udp_tunnel_core.c:181
> > >   sctp_udp_sock_stop+0x71/0x160 net/sctp/protocol.c:930
> > >   proc_sctp_do_udp_port+0x264/0x450 net/sctp/sysctl.c:553
> > >   proc_sys_call_handler+0x3d0/0x5b0 fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c:601
> > >   iter_file_splice_write+0x91c/0x1150 fs/splice.c:738
> > >   do_splice_from fs/splice.c:935 [inline]
> > >   direct_splice_actor+0x18f/0x6c0 fs/splice.c:1158
> > >   splice_direct_to_actor+0x342/0xa30 fs/splice.c:1102
> > >   do_splice_direct_actor fs/splice.c:1201 [inline]
> > >   do_splice_direct+0x174/0x240 fs/splice.c:1227
> > >   do_sendfile+0xafd/0xe50 fs/read_write.c:1368
> > >   __do_sys_sendfile64 fs/read_write.c:1429 [inline]
> > >   __se_sys_sendfile64 fs/read_write.c:1415 [inline]
> > >   __x64_sys_sendfile64+0x1d8/0x220 fs/read_write.c:1415
> > >   do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:63 [inline]
> > >
> > > Fixes: 046c052b475e ("sctp: enable udp tunneling socks")
> > > Reported-by: syzbot+fae49d997eb56fa7c74d@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> > > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/67ea5c01.050a0220.1547ec.012b.GAE@google.com/T/#u
> > > Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
> > > Cc: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>
> > > Cc: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > >  net/sctp/sysctl.c | 4 ++++
> > >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/net/sctp/sysctl.c b/net/sctp/sysctl.c
> > > index 8e1e97be4df79f3245e2bbbeb0a75841abc67f58..ee3eac338a9deef064f273e29bb59b057835d3f1 100644
> > > --- a/net/sctp/sysctl.c
> > > +++ b/net/sctp/sysctl.c
> > > @@ -525,6 +525,8 @@ static int proc_sctp_do_auth(const struct ctl_table *ctl, int write,
> > >         return ret;
> > >  }
> > >
> > > +static DEFINE_MUTEX(sctp_sysctl_mutex);
> > > +
> > >  static int proc_sctp_do_udp_port(const struct ctl_table *ctl, int write,
> > >                                  void *buffer, size_t *lenp, loff_t *ppos)
> > >  {
> > > @@ -549,6 +551,7 @@ static int proc_sctp_do_udp_port(const struct ctl_table *ctl, int write,
> > >                 if (new_value > max || new_value < min)
> > >                         return -EINVAL;
> > >
> > > +               mutex_lock(&sctp_sysctl_mutex);
> > >                 net->sctp.udp_port = new_value;
> > >                 sctp_udp_sock_stop(net);
> > >                 if (new_value) {
> > > @@ -561,6 +564,7 @@ static int proc_sctp_do_udp_port(const struct ctl_table *ctl, int write,
> > >                 lock_sock(sk);
> > >                 sctp_sk(sk)->udp_port = htons(net->sctp.udp_port);
> > >                 release_sock(sk);
> > > +               mutex_unlock(&sctp_sysctl_mutex);
> > >         }
> > >
> > >         return ret;
> > > --
> > > 2.49.0.472.ge94155a9ec-goog
> > >
> > Instead of introducing a new lock for this, wouldn't be better to just
> > move up `lock_sock(sk)` a little bit?
>
> It depends if calling synchronize_rcu() two times while holding the
> socket lock is ok or not ?
hm, It doesn't sound normal, although this ctl_sock only handles the
out-of-blue packets.

>
> What is the issue about using a separate mutex ?
no issue, just don't want to introduce a new lock for this only.

Acked-by: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>

Re: [PATCH net] sctp: add mutual exclusion in proc_sctp_do_udp_port()

[Xin Long]

On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 2:50 PM David Laight
<david.laight.linux@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:11:38 +0200
> Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 5:54 PM Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 5:15 AM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > We must serialize calls to sctp_udp_sock_stop() and sctp_udp_sock_start()
> > > > or risk a crash as syzbot reported:
> > > >
> > > > Oops: general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0xdffffc000000000d: 0000 [#1] SMP KASAN PTI
> > > > KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x0000000000000068-0x000000000000006f]
> > > > CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 6551 Comm: syz.1.44 Not tainted 6.14.0-syzkaller-g7f2ff7b62617 #0 PREEMPT(full)
> > > > Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 02/12/2025
> > > >  RIP: 0010:kernel_sock_shutdown+0x47/0x70 net/socket.c:3653
> > > > Call Trace:
> > > >  <TASK>
> > > >   udp_tunnel_sock_release+0x68/0x80 net/ipv4/udp_tunnel_core.c:181
> > > >   sctp_udp_sock_stop+0x71/0x160 net/sctp/protocol.c:930
> > > >   proc_sctp_do_udp_port+0x264/0x450 net/sctp/sysctl.c:553
> > > >   proc_sys_call_handler+0x3d0/0x5b0 fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c:601
> > > >   iter_file_splice_write+0x91c/0x1150 fs/splice.c:738
> > > >   do_splice_from fs/splice.c:935 [inline]
> > > >   direct_splice_actor+0x18f/0x6c0 fs/splice.c:1158
> > > >   splice_direct_to_actor+0x342/0xa30 fs/splice.c:1102
> > > >   do_splice_direct_actor fs/splice.c:1201 [inline]
> > > >   do_splice_direct+0x174/0x240 fs/splice.c:1227
> > > >   do_sendfile+0xafd/0xe50 fs/read_write.c:1368
> > > >   __do_sys_sendfile64 fs/read_write.c:1429 [inline]
> > > >   __se_sys_sendfile64 fs/read_write.c:1415 [inline]
> > > >   __x64_sys_sendfile64+0x1d8/0x220 fs/read_write.c:1415
> > > >   do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:63 [inline]
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: 046c052b475e ("sctp: enable udp tunneling socks")
> > > > Reported-by: syzbot+fae49d997eb56fa7c74d@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> > > > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/67ea5c01.050a0220.1547ec.012b.GAE@google.com/T/#u
> > > > Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
> > > > Cc: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>
> > > > Cc: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  net/sctp/sysctl.c | 4 ++++
> > > >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/net/sctp/sysctl.c b/net/sctp/sysctl.c
> > > > index 8e1e97be4df79f3245e2bbbeb0a75841abc67f58..ee3eac338a9deef064f273e29bb59b057835d3f1 100644
> > > > --- a/net/sctp/sysctl.c
> > > > +++ b/net/sctp/sysctl.c
> > > > @@ -525,6 +525,8 @@ static int proc_sctp_do_auth(const struct ctl_table *ctl, int write,
> > > >         return ret;
> > > >  }
> > > >
> > > > +static DEFINE_MUTEX(sctp_sysctl_mutex);
> > > > +
> > > >  static int proc_sctp_do_udp_port(const struct ctl_table *ctl, int write,
> > > >                                  void *buffer, size_t *lenp, loff_t *ppos)
> > > >  {
> > > > @@ -549,6 +551,7 @@ static int proc_sctp_do_udp_port(const struct ctl_table *ctl, int write,
> > > >                 if (new_value > max || new_value < min)
> > > >                         return -EINVAL;
> > > >
> > > > +               mutex_lock(&sctp_sysctl_mutex);
> > > >                 net->sctp.udp_port = new_value;
> > > >                 sctp_udp_sock_stop(net);
> > > >                 if (new_value) {
> > > > @@ -561,6 +564,7 @@ static int proc_sctp_do_udp_port(const struct ctl_table *ctl, int write,
> > > >                 lock_sock(sk);
> > > >                 sctp_sk(sk)->udp_port = htons(net->sctp.udp_port);
> > > >                 release_sock(sk);
> > > > +               mutex_unlock(&sctp_sysctl_mutex);
> > > >         }
> > > >
> > > >         return ret;
> > > > --
> > > > 2.49.0.472.ge94155a9ec-goog
> > > >
> > > Instead of introducing a new lock for this, wouldn't be better to just
> > > move up `lock_sock(sk)` a little bit?
> >
> > It depends if calling synchronize_rcu() two times while holding the
> > socket lock is ok or not ?
> >
> > What is the issue about using a separate mutex ?
> >
>
> Don't they need locking against a different path that is using the socket?
> Not only against concurrent accesses to the sysctl?
>
Hi Davide,

The lock is used to protect the variable 'net->sctp.udp4_sock',  and there
are no other paths accessing it.

The udp socket is created to listen on a specific port for receiving only,
there's no need to access net->sctp.udp4_sock in sctp data path.

Thanks.

> Presuming the crash was because of the net->sctp.udp4_sock = NULL
> assignment in sock_stop(), if 'min' is zero allowing 'new_value' zero
> then the pointer is left NULL.
>
> IIRC sctp_sk(sk) is fixed, so the sock_lock() doesn't do much apart
> from stop some unlikely 'data tearing'.
>
>         David

Re: [PATCH net] sctp: add mutual exclusion in proc_sctp_do_udp_port()

[patchwork-bot+netdevbpf]

Hello:

This patch was applied to netdev/net.git (main)
by Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>:

On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 09:15:32 +0000 you wrote:
> We must serialize calls to sctp_udp_sock_stop() and sctp_udp_sock_start()
> or risk a crash as syzbot reported:
> 
> Oops: general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0xdffffc000000000d: 0000 [#1] SMP KASAN PTI
> KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x0000000000000068-0x000000000000006f]
> CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 6551 Comm: syz.1.44 Not tainted 6.14.0-syzkaller-g7f2ff7b62617 #0 PREEMPT(full)
> Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 02/12/2025
>  RIP: 0010:kernel_sock_shutdown+0x47/0x70 net/socket.c:3653
> Call Trace:
>  <TASK>
>   udp_tunnel_sock_release+0x68/0x80 net/ipv4/udp_tunnel_core.c:181
>   sctp_udp_sock_stop+0x71/0x160 net/sctp/protocol.c:930
>   proc_sctp_do_udp_port+0x264/0x450 net/sctp/sysctl.c:553
>   proc_sys_call_handler+0x3d0/0x5b0 fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c:601
>   iter_file_splice_write+0x91c/0x1150 fs/splice.c:738
>   do_splice_from fs/splice.c:935 [inline]
>   direct_splice_actor+0x18f/0x6c0 fs/splice.c:1158
>   splice_direct_to_actor+0x342/0xa30 fs/splice.c:1102
>   do_splice_direct_actor fs/splice.c:1201 [inline]
>   do_splice_direct+0x174/0x240 fs/splice.c:1227
>   do_sendfile+0xafd/0xe50 fs/read_write.c:1368
>   __do_sys_sendfile64 fs/read_write.c:1429 [inline]
>   __se_sys_sendfile64 fs/read_write.c:1415 [inline]
>   __x64_sys_sendfile64+0x1d8/0x220 fs/read_write.c:1415
>   do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:63 [inline]
> 
> [...]

Here is the summary with links:
  - [net] sctp: add mutual exclusion in proc_sctp_do_udp_port()
    https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net/c/10206302af85

You are awesome, thank you!
-- 
Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot.
https://korg.docs.kernel.org/patchwork/pwbot.html