From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
To: David Lee <david.lee@trailofbits.com>,
david.lee@trailofbits.com,
Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
Dominik 'Disconnect3d' Czarnota
<dominik.czarnota@trailofbits.com>,
Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net/packet: avoid fanout hook re-registration after unregister
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2026 19:34:29 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <willemdebruijn.kernel.1cfea9a8313a4@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260701113947.23180-1-david.lee@trailofbits.com>
David Lee wrote:
> packet_set_ring() temporarily detaches a socket from packet delivery while
> reconfiguring its ring. It records the previous running state, clears
> po->num, unregisters the protocol hook when needed, drops po->bind_lock,
> and later restores po->num and re-registers the hook from the saved
> was_running value.
>
> That unlocked window can race with NETDEV_UNREGISTER. The notifier can
> observe the socket as not running, skip __unregister_prot_hook(), and
> invalidate the per-socket binding by setting po->ifindex to -1 and clearing
> po->prot_hook.dev. A one-member fanout group can still retain its shared
> fanout hook device pointer. When packet_set_ring() resumes, re-registering
> solely from the stale was_running state can re-add the fanout hook after
> the device has been unregistered.
Thanks for the report with fix.
> Treat po->ifindex == -1 as an invalidated binding after reacquiring
> po->bind_lock. Restore po->num as before, but do not re-register the hook
> if device unregister already detached the socket.
I guess key here is that po->ifindex == -1 is not the normal device
unbound state. That would be po->ifindex 0, and those sockets do need
to be restored.
So this LGTM.
The bug here is having a stale fanout->prot_hook->dev.
If this is the only socket in a fanout group then
__unregister_prot_hook calls __fanout_unlink calls
__dev_remove_pack(&f->prot_hook).
Then later __register_prot_hook calls __fanout_link and
dev_add_pack(&f->prot_hook), rather than checking po->prot_hook.dev,
which packet_notifier modified.
An alternative would be for __fanout_link to check
@@ -1518,7 +1518,8 @@ static void __fanout_link(struct sock *sk, struct packet_sock *po)
rcu_assign_pointer(f->arr[f->num_members], sk);
smp_wmb();
f->num_members++;
- if (f->num_members == 1)
+ if (f->num_members == 1 &&
+ f->prot_hook.dev == po->prot_hook.dev)
dev_add_pack(&f->prot_hook);
spin_unlock(&f->lock);
}
This condition is true when the group is created and checked on every
socket joining the group.
Or even simpler
+ if (f->num_members == 1 && READ_ONCE(po->ifindex) != -1)
But as said the patch as shared should work too.
Patches to net need a Fixes tag:
Fixes: dc99f600698d ("packet: Add fanout support.")
> Signed-off-by: Dominik 'Disconnect3d' Czarnota <dominik.czarnota@trailofbits.com>
I'm not entirely sure what the policy on nicknames is. But at best it
is uncommon. Consider dropping.
> Assisted-by: Codex:gpt-5
> ---
> Bug found and triaged by David Lee from Trail of Bits.
Instead, a Reported-by tag?
> Trail of Bits has a PoC that achieves local privilege escalation using this
> bug on a custom kernel config with CONFIG_LIST_HARDENED disabled, which can
> be shared further if needed.
>
> net/packet/af_packet.c | 6 +++++-
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/packet/af_packet.c b/net/packet/af_packet.c
> index 8e6f3a734ba0..000000000000 100644
> --- a/net/packet/af_packet.c
> +++ b/net/packet/af_packet.c
> @@ -4561,7 +4561,11 @@ static int packet_set_ring(struct sock *sk, union tpacket_req_u *req_u,
>
> spin_lock(&po->bind_lock);
> WRITE_ONCE(po->num, num);
> - if (was_running)
> + /*
> + * NETDEV_UNREGISTER may have invalidated the binding while bind_lock
> + * was dropped above. Do not re-add a fanout hook to a dead device.
> + */
> + if (was_running && READ_ONCE(po->ifindex) != -1)
> register_prot_hook(sk);
>
> spin_unlock(&po->bind_lock);
> --
> 2.43.0
x
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-01 23:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-01 11:39 [PATCH net] net/packet: avoid fanout hook re-registration after unregister David Lee
2026-07-01 23:34 ` Willem de Bruijn [this message]
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=willemdebruijn.kernel.1cfea9a8313a4@gmail.com \
--to=willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=david.lee@trailofbits.com \
--cc=dominik.czarnota@trailofbits.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--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