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;
Date:   Thu, 29 Aug 2019 15:18:46 -0700
From:   John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Cc:     Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>,
        syzbot <syzbot+7a6ee4d0078eac6bf782@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
        aviadye@mellanox.com, borisp@mellanox.com, daniel@iogearbox.net,
        davejwatson@fb.com, davem@davemloft.net,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com
Message-ID: <5d684f46b5c51_6192b27353185bcf7@john-XPS-13-9370.notmuch>
In-Reply-To: <20190829115315.5686c18f@cakuba.netronome.com>
References: <000000000000c3c461059127a1c4@google.com>
 <20190829035200.3340-1-hdanton@sina.com>
 <20190829094343.0248c61c@cakuba.netronome.com>
 <5d681e0011c7b_6b462ad11252c5c084@john-XPS-13-9370.notmuch>
 <20190829115315.5686c18f@cakuba.netronome.com>
Subject: Re: general protection fault in tls_sk_proto_close (2)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 11:48:32 -0700, John Fastabend wrote:
> > Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 11:52:00 +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:  
> > > > Alternatively work is done if sock is closed again. Anyway ctx is reset
> > > > under sock's callback lock in write mode.
> > > > 
> > > > --- a/net/tls/tls_main.c
> > > > +++ b/net/tls/tls_main.c
> > > > @@ -295,6 +295,8 @@ static void tls_sk_proto_close(struct so
> > > >  	long timeo = sock_sndtimeo(sk, 0);
> > > >  	bool free_ctx;
> > > >  
> > > > +	if (!ctx)
> > > > +		return;
> > > >  	if (ctx->tx_conf == TLS_SW)
> > > >  		tls_sw_cancel_work_tx(ctx);  
> > > 
> > > That's no bueno, the real socket's close will never get called.  
> > 
> > Seems when we refactored BPF side we dropped the check for ULP on one
> > path so I'll add that back now. It would be nice and seems we are
> > getting closer now that tls side is a bit more dynamic if the ordering
> > didn't matter.
> 
> We'd probably need some more generic way of communicating the changes
> in sk_proto stack, e.g. by moving the update into one of sk_proto
> callbacks? but yes.
> 
> > diff --git a/net/core/sock_map.c b/net/core/sock_map.c
> > index 1330a7442e5b..30d11558740e 100644
> > --- a/net/core/sock_map.c
> > +++ b/net/core/sock_map.c
> > @@ -666,6 +666,8 @@ static int sock_hash_update_common(struct bpf_map *map, void *key,
> >         WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held());
> >         if (unlikely(flags > BPF_EXIST))
> >                 return -EINVAL;
> > +       if (unlikely(icsk->icsk_ulp_data))
> > +               return -EINVAL;
> > 
> >         link = sk_psock_init_link();
> >         if (!link)
> 
> Thanks! That looks good, if you feel like submitting officially feel
> free to add my Reviewed-by!

I'll send it out this evening after running the selftests.

.John