Re: pull-request: bpf 2023-11-30

[John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>]

Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 11/30/23 3:53 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 12:49 AM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi David, hi Jakub, hi Paolo, hi Eric,
> >>
> >> The following pull-request contains BPF updates for your *net* tree.
> >>
> >> We've added 5 non-merge commits during the last 7 day(s) which contain
> >> a total of 10 files changed, 66 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-).
> >>
> >> The main changes are:
> >>
> >> 1) Fix AF_UNIX splat from use after free in BPF sockmap, from John Fastabend.
> > 
> > syzbot is not happy with this patch.
> > 
> > Would the following fix make sense?
> > 
> > diff --git a/net/unix/unix_bpf.c b/net/unix/unix_bpf.c
> > index 7ea7c3a0d0d06224f49ad5f073bf772b9528a30a..58e89361059fbf9d5942c6dd268dd80ac4b57098
> > 100644
> > --- a/net/unix/unix_bpf.c
> > +++ b/net/unix/unix_bpf.c
> > @@ -168,7 +168,8 @@ int unix_stream_bpf_update_proto(struct sock *sk,
> > struct sk_psock *psock, bool r
> >          }
> > 
> >          sk_pair = unix_peer(sk);
> > -       sock_hold(sk_pair);
> > +       if (sk_pair)
> > +               sock_hold(sk_pair);
> >          psock->sk_pair = sk_pair;
> >          unix_stream_bpf_check_needs_rebuild(psock->sk_proto);
> >          sock_replace_proto(sk, &unix_stream_bpf_prot);
> > 
> 
> Oh well :/ Above looks reasonable to me, thanks, but I'll defer to John & Jakub (both Cc'ed)
> for a final look.
> 
> Thanks,
> Daniel

Is that sk in LISTEN state by any chance? I can't think why we even allow such a
thing for af_unix sockets.  Another possible fix would be to block adding these
to sockmap at all.

But, above should be fine as well so I would just go with that. Eric or Daniel
would you like to submit a patch or I can if needed.

Thanks,
John