Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <71250616-36c1-0d96-8fac-4aaaae6a28d4@redhat.com>
 <20190428030539.17776-1-yuehaibing@huawei.com> <516ba6e4-359b-15d0-e169-d8cc1e989a4a@redhat.com>
 <2c823bbf-28c4-b43d-52d9-b0e0356f03ae@redhat.com> <6AADFAC011213A4C87B956458587ADB4021F7531@dggeml532-mbs.china.huawei.com>
 <b33ce1f9-3d65-2d05-648b-f5a6cfbd59ab@redhat.com> <CAM_iQpUfpruaFowbiTOY7aH4Ts-xcY4JACGLOT3CUjLqpg_zXw@mail.gmail.com>
 <528517144.24310809.1556504619719.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <528517144.24310809.1556504619719.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 Apr 2019 09:38:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpXNp4h-ZAf4S+OH_1kVE_qk_eb+r6=ZUsK1t2=3aQOOtw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tun: Fix use-after-free in tun_net_xmit
To:     Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
Cc:     "weiyongjun (A)" <weiyongjun1@huawei.com>,
        yuehaibing <yuehaibing@huawei.com>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
        "Li,Rongqing" <lirongqing@baidu.com>,
        nicolas dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com>,
        Chas Williams <3chas3@gmail.com>, wangli39@baidu.com,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 7:23 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 2019/4/29 =E4=B8=8A=E5=8D=881:59, Cong Wang wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 12:51 AM Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote=
:
> >>> tun_net_xmit() doesn't have the chance to
> >>> access the change because it holding the rcu_read_lock().
> >>
> >>
> >> The problem is the following codes:
> >>
> >>
> >>          --tun->numqueues;
> >>
> >>          ...
> >>
> >>          synchronize_net();
> >>
> >> We need make sure the decrement of tun->numqueues be visible to reader=
s
> >> after synchronize_net(). And in tun_net_xmit():
> >
> > It doesn't matter at all. Readers are okay to read it even they still u=
se the
> > stale tun->numqueues, as long as the tfile is not freed readers can rea=
d
> > whatever they want...
>
> This is only true if we set SOCK_RCU_FREE, isn't it?


Sure, this is how RCU is supposed to work.

>
> >
> > The decrement of tun->numqueues is just how we unpublish the old
> > tfile, it is still valid for readers to read it _after_ unpublish, we o=
nly need
> > to worry about free, not about unpublish. This is the whole spirit of R=
CU.
> >
>
> The point is we don't convert tun->numqueues to RCU but use
> synchronize_net().

Why tun->numqueues needs RCU? It is an integer, and reading a stale
value is _perfectly_ fine.

If you actually meant to say tun->tfiles[] itself, no, it is a fixed-size a=
rray,
it doesn't shrink or grow, so we don't need RCU for it. This is also why
a stale tun->numqueues is fine, as long as it never goes out-of-bound.


>
> > You need to rethink about my SOCK_RCU_FREE patch.
>
> The code is wrote before SOCK_RCU_FREE is introduced and assume no
> de-reference from device after synchronize_net(). It doesn't harm to
> figure out the root cause which may give us more confidence to the fix
> (e.g like SOCK_RCU_FREE).

I believe SOCK_RCU_FREE is the fix for the root cause, not just a
cover-up.


>
> I don't object to fix with SOCK_RCU_FREE, but then we should remove
> the redundant synchronize_net(). But I still prefer to synchronize
> everything explicitly like (completely untested):

I agree that synchronize_net() can be removed. However I don't
understand your untested patch at all, it looks like to fix a completely
different problem rather than this use-after-free.

Thanks.