From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
To: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@amazon.com>, willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com
Cc: davem@davemloft.net, dsahern@kernel.org, edumazet@google.com,
horms@kernel.org, kuba@kernel.org, kuni1840@gmail.com,
kuniyu@amazon.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 net 1/3] udp: Fix multiple wraparounds of sk->sk_rmem_alloc.
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 10:18:30 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <67e2bb367b235_3b4cd829495@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250324204653.63879-1-kuniyu@amazon.com>
Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 15:44:40 -0400
> > Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> > > From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
> > > Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 10:59:49 -0400
> > > > Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> > > > > __udp_enqueue_schedule_skb() has the following condition:
> > > > >
> > > > > if (atomic_read(&sk->sk_rmem_alloc) > sk->sk_rcvbuf)
> > > > > goto drop;
> > > > >
> > > > > sk->sk_rcvbuf is initialised by net.core.rmem_default and later can
> > > > > be configured by SO_RCVBUF, which is limited by net.core.rmem_max,
> > > > > or SO_RCVBUFFORCE.
> > > > >
> > > > > If we set INT_MAX to sk->sk_rcvbuf, the condition is always false
> > > > > as sk->sk_rmem_alloc is also signed int.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then, the size of the incoming skb is added to sk->sk_rmem_alloc
> > > > > unconditionally.
> > > > >
> > > > > This results in integer overflow (possibly multiple times) on
> > > > > sk->sk_rmem_alloc and allows a single socket to have skb up to
> > > > > net.core.udp_mem[1].
> > > > >
> > > > > For example, if we set a large value to udp_mem[1] and INT_MAX to
> > > > > sk->sk_rcvbuf and flood packets to the socket, we can see multiple
> > > > > overflows:
> > > > >
> > > > > # cat /proc/net/sockstat | grep UDP:
> > > > > UDP: inuse 3 mem 7956736 <-- (7956736 << 12) bytes > INT_MAX * 15
> > > > > ^- PAGE_SHIFT
> > > > > # ss -uam
> > > > > State Recv-Q ...
> > > > > UNCONN -1757018048 ... <-- flipping the sign repeatedly
> > > > > skmem:(r2537949248,rb2147483646,t0,tb212992,f1984,w0,o0,bl0,d0)
> > > > >
> > > > > Previously, we had a boundary check for INT_MAX, which was removed by
> > > > > commit 6a1f12dd85a8 ("udp: relax atomic operation on sk->sk_rmem_alloc").
> > > > >
> > > > > A complete fix would be to revert it and cap the right operand by
> > > > > INT_MAX:
> > > > >
> > > > > rmem = atomic_add_return(size, &sk->sk_rmem_alloc);
> > > > > if (rmem > min(size + (unsigned int)sk->sk_rcvbuf, INT_MAX))
> > > > > goto uncharge_drop;
> > > > >
> > > > > but we do not want to add the expensive atomic_add_return() back just
> > > > > for the corner case.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, let's perform the first check as unsigned int to detect the
> > > > > integer overflow.
> > > > >
> > > > > Note that we still allow a single wraparound, which can be observed
> > > > > from userspace, but it's acceptable considering it's unlikely that
> > > > > no recv() is called for a long period, and the negative value will
> > > > > soon flip back to positive after a few recv() calls.
> > > >
> > > > Can we do better than this?
> > >
> > > Another approach I had in mind was to restore the original validation
> > > under the recvq lock but without atomic ops like
> > >
> > > 1. add another u32 as union of sk_rmem_alloc (only for UDP)
> > > 2. access it with READ_ONCE() or under the recvq lock
> > > 3. perform the validation under the lock
> > >
> > > But it requires more changes around the error queue handling and
> > > the general socket impl, so will be too invasive for net.git but
> > > maybe worth a try for net-next ?
> >
> > Definitely not net material. Adding more complexity here
> > would also need some convincing benchmark data probably.
> >
> > >
> > > > Is this because of the "Always allow at least one packet" below, and
> > > > due to testing the value of the counter without skb->truesize added?
> > >
> > > Yes, that's the reason although we don't receive a single >INT_MAX
> > > packet.
> >
> > I was surprised that we don't take the current skb size into
> > account when doing this calculation.
> >
> > Turns out that this code used to do that.
> >
> > commit 363dc73acacb ("udp: be less conservative with sock rmem
> > accounting") made this change:
> >
> > - if (rmem && (rmem + size > sk->sk_rcvbuf))
> > + if (rmem > sk->sk_rcvbuf)
> > goto drop;
> >
> > The special consideration to allow one packet is to avoid starvation
> > with small rcvbuf, judging also from this review comment:
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/1476938622.5650.111.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com/
>
> Interesting, thanks for the info !
>
> Now it's allowed to exceed by the total size of the incoming skb
> on every CPUs, and a user may notice that rmem > rcvbuf via ss,
> but I guess it's allowed because the fast recovery is expected.
>
>
> >
> > That clearly doesn't apply when rcvbuf is near INT_MAX.
> > Can we separate the tiny budget case and hard drop including the
> > skb->truesize for normal buffer sizes?
>
> Maybe like this ?
>
> if (rcvbuf < UDP_MIN_RCVBUF) {
> if (rmem > rcvbuf)
> goto drop;
> } else {
> if (rmem + size > rcvbuf)
> goto drop;
> }
>
> SOCK_MIN_RCVBUF is 2K + skb since 2013, but the regression was
> reported after that in 2016, so UDP_MIN_RCVBUF would be more ?
Since the only issue is the overflow, could use a higher bound like
INT_MAX >> 1.
> But I wonder if adding new branches in the fast path is worth for
> the corner case, and that's why I chose integrating the cast into
> the exisintg branch, allowing a small overflow, which is observable
> only when no thread calls recv() and skbs are queued more than INT_MAX.
Okay. Though it can probably be structured that the likely path does
not even see this?
if (rmem + size > rcvbuf) {
if (rcvbuf > INT_MAX << 1)
goto drop;
if (rmem > rcvbuf)
goto drop;
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-03-25 14:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-03-23 23:09 [PATCH v1 net 0/3] udp: Fix two integer overflows when sk->sk_rcvbuf is close to INT_MAX Kuniyuki Iwashima
2025-03-23 23:09 ` [PATCH v1 net 1/3] udp: Fix multiple wraparounds of sk->sk_rmem_alloc Kuniyuki Iwashima
2025-03-24 10:01 ` Eric Dumazet
2025-03-24 18:00 ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
2025-03-24 14:59 ` Willem de Bruijn
2025-03-24 18:10 ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
2025-03-24 19:44 ` Willem de Bruijn
2025-03-24 20:46 ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
2025-03-25 14:18 ` Willem de Bruijn [this message]
2025-03-25 17:53 ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
2025-03-23 23:09 ` [PATCH v1 net 2/3] udp: Fix memory accounting leak Kuniyuki Iwashima
2025-03-23 23:09 ` [PATCH v1 net 3/3] selftest: net: Check wraparounds for sk->sk_rmem_alloc Kuniyuki Iwashima
2025-03-24 15:58 ` Willem de Bruijn
2025-03-24 18:25 ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
2025-03-24 19:31 ` Willem de Bruijn
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=67e2bb367b235_3b4cd829495@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch \
--to=willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dsahern@kernel.org \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=kuni1840@gmail.com \
--cc=kuniyu@amazon.com \
--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