From: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
To: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@amazon.com>, mhal@rbox.co
Cc: Rao.Shoaib@oracle.com, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
cong.wang@bytedance.com, davem@davemloft.net,
edumazet@google.com, jakub@cloudflare.com,
john.fastabend@gmail.com, kuba@kernel.org, kuniyu@amazon.com,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf v3 1/4] af_unix: Disable MSG_OOB handling for sockets in sockmap/sockhash
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2024 18:24:02 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <668c9132195f6_d7720840@john.notmuch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240708193820.3392-1-kuniyu@amazon.com>
Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> From: Michal Luczaj <mhal@rbox.co>
> Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2024 23:28:22 +0200
> > AF_UNIX socket tracks the most recent OOB packet (in its receive queue)
> > with an `oob_skb` pointer. BPF redirecting does not account for that: when
> > an OOB packet is moved between sockets, `oob_skb` is left outdated. This
> > results in a single skb that may be accessed from two different sockets.
> >
> > Take the easy way out: silently drop MSG_OOB data targeting any socket that
> > is in a sockmap or a sockhash. Note that such silent drop is akin to the
> > fate of redirected skb's scm_fp_list (SCM_RIGHTS, SCM_CREDENTIALS).
> >
> > For symmetry, forbid MSG_OOB in unix_bpf_recvmsg().
> >
> > Suggested-by: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@amazon.com>
> > Fixes: 314001f0bf92 ("af_unix: Add OOB support")
> > Signed-off-by: Michal Luczaj <mhal@rbox.co>
>
Why does af_unix put the oob data on the sk_receive_queue()? Wouldn't it
be enough to just have the ousk->oob_skb hold the reference to the skb?
I think for TCP/UDP at least I'll want to handle MSG_OOB data correctly.
For redirect its probably fine to just drop or skip it, but when we are
just reading recv msgs and parsing/observing it would be nice to not change
how the application works. In practice I don't recall anyone reporting
issues on TCP side though from incorrectly handling URG data.
From TCP side I believe we can fix the OOB case by checking the oob queue
before doing the recvmsg handling. If the urg data wasn't on the general
sk_receive_queue we could do similar here for af_unix? My argument for
URG not working for redirect would be to let userspace handle it if they
cared.
Thanks.
> Reviewed-by: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@amazon.com>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> > ---
> > net/unix/af_unix.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > net/unix/unix_bpf.c | 3 +++
> > 2 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/unix/af_unix.c b/net/unix/af_unix.c
> > index 142f56770b77..11cb5badafb6 100644
> > --- a/net/unix/af_unix.c
> > +++ b/net/unix/af_unix.c
> > @@ -2667,10 +2667,49 @@ static struct sk_buff *manage_oob(struct sk_buff *skb, struct sock *sk,
> >
> > static int unix_stream_read_skb(struct sock *sk, skb_read_actor_t recv_actor)
> > {
> > + struct unix_sock *u = unix_sk(sk);
> > + struct sk_buff *skb;
> > + int err;
> > +
> > if (unlikely(READ_ONCE(sk->sk_state) != TCP_ESTABLISHED))
> > return -ENOTCONN;
> >
> > - return unix_read_skb(sk, recv_actor);
> > + mutex_lock(&u->iolock);
> > + skb = skb_recv_datagram(sk, MSG_DONTWAIT, &err);
> > + mutex_unlock(&u->iolock);
> > + if (!skb)
> > + return err;
> > +
> > +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_AF_UNIX_OOB)
> > + if (unlikely(skb == READ_ONCE(u->oob_skb))) {
> > + bool drop = false;
> > +
> > + unix_state_lock(sk);
> > +
> > + if (sock_flag(sk, SOCK_DEAD)) {
> > + unix_state_unlock(sk);
> > + kfree_skb(skb);
> > + return -ECONNRESET;
> > + }
> > +
> > + spin_lock(&sk->sk_receive_queue.lock);
> > + if (likely(skb == u->oob_skb)) {
> > + WRITE_ONCE(u->oob_skb, NULL);
> > + drop = true;
> > + }
> > + spin_unlock(&sk->sk_receive_queue.lock);
> > +
> > + unix_state_unlock(sk);
> > +
> > + if (drop) {
> > + WARN_ON_ONCE(skb_unref(skb));
> > + kfree_skb(skb);
> > + return -EAGAIN;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +#endif
> > +
> > + return recv_actor(sk, skb);
> > }
> >
> > static int unix_stream_read_generic(struct unix_stream_read_state *state,
> > diff --git a/net/unix/unix_bpf.c b/net/unix/unix_bpf.c
> > index bd84785bf8d6..bca2d86ba97d 100644
> > --- a/net/unix/unix_bpf.c
> > +++ b/net/unix/unix_bpf.c
> > @@ -54,6 +54,9 @@ static int unix_bpf_recvmsg(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr *msg,
> > struct sk_psock *psock;
> > int copied;
> >
> > + if (flags & MSG_OOB)
> > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > +
> > if (!len)
> > return 0;
> >
> > --
> > 2.45.2
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-07-09 1:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-07-07 21:28 [PATCH bpf v3 0/4] af_unix: MSG_OOB handling fix & selftest Michal Luczaj
2024-07-07 21:28 ` [PATCH bpf v3 1/4] af_unix: Disable MSG_OOB handling for sockets in sockmap/sockhash Michal Luczaj
2024-07-08 19:38 ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
2024-07-09 1:24 ` John Fastabend [this message]
2024-07-09 2:18 ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
2024-07-09 9:48 ` Jakub Sitnicki
2024-07-07 21:28 ` [PATCH bpf v3 2/4] selftest/bpf: Support SOCK_STREAM in unix_inet_redir_to_connected() Michal Luczaj
2024-07-09 9:48 ` Jakub Sitnicki
2024-07-11 20:33 ` Michal Luczaj
2024-07-13 9:45 ` Jakub Sitnicki
2024-07-13 20:16 ` Michal Luczaj
2024-07-16 9:14 ` Jakub Sitnicki
2024-07-16 20:58 ` Michal Luczaj
2024-07-17 20:15 ` Michal Luczaj
2024-07-19 11:09 ` Jakub Sitnicki
2024-07-22 13:07 ` Michal Luczaj
2024-07-22 19:26 ` Jakub Sitnicki
2024-07-22 22:07 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-07-22 22:21 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-07-23 12:31 ` Michal Luczaj
2024-07-24 11:36 ` Michal Luczaj
2024-07-07 21:28 ` [PATCH bpf v3 3/4] selftest/bpf: Parametrize AF_UNIX redir functions to accept send() flags Michal Luczaj
2024-07-09 9:59 ` Jakub Sitnicki
2024-07-11 20:34 ` Michal Luczaj
2024-07-07 21:28 ` [PATCH bpf v3 4/4] selftest/bpf: Test sockmap redirect for AF_UNIX MSG_OOB Michal Luczaj
2024-07-09 10:08 ` Jakub Sitnicki
2024-07-11 20:35 ` Michal Luczaj
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=668c9132195f6_d7720840@john.notmuch \
--to=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=Rao.Shoaib@oracle.com \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=cong.wang@bytedance.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=jakub@cloudflare.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=kuniyu@amazon.com \
--cc=mhal@rbox.co \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).