Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] IB/sa: Resolving use-after-free in ib_nl_send_msg.
To:     "Wan, Kaike" <kaike.wan@intel.com>,
        Mark Bloch <markb@mellanox.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
Cc:     Gerd Rausch <gerd.rausch@oracle.com>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?H=c3=a5kon_Bugge?= <haakon.bugge@oracle.com>,
        Srinivas Eeda <srinivas.eeda@oracle.com>,
        Rama Nichanamatlu <rama.nichanamatlu@oracle.com>,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>
References: <1588876487-5781-1-git-send-email-divya.indi@oracle.com>
 <1588876487-5781-2-git-send-email-divya.indi@oracle.com>
 <7572e503-312c-26a8-c8c2-05515f1c4f84@mellanox.com>
 <MW3PR11MB4665120FE43314C22A862324F4A50@MW3PR11MB4665.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From:   Divya Indi <divya.indi@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <54a2c84e-1745-cae5-e0b5-4d63013aef32@oracle.com>
Date:   Mon, 11 May 2020 14:06:25 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:68.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <MW3PR11MB4665120FE43314C22A862324F4A50@MW3PR11MB4665.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

Thanks for taking the time to review. Please find my comments inline -

On 5/7/20 1:16 PM, Wan, Kaike wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mark Bloch <markb@mellanox.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2020 3:36 PM
>> To: Divya Indi <divya.indi@oracle.com>; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-
>> rdma@vger.kernel.org; Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>; Wan, Kaike
>> <kaike.wan@intel.com>
>> Cc: Gerd Rausch <gerd.rausch@oracle.com>; Håkon Bugge
>> <haakon.bugge@oracle.com>; Srinivas Eeda <srinivas.eeda@oracle.com>;
>> Rama Nichanamatlu <rama.nichanamatlu@oracle.com>; Doug Ledford
>> <dledford@redhat.com>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] IB/sa: Resolving use-after-free in ib_nl_send_msg.
>>
>>
>>> @@ -1123,6 +1156,18 @@ int ib_nl_handle_resolve_resp(struct sk_buff
>>> *skb,
>>>
>>>  	send_buf = query->mad_buf;
>>>
>>> +	/*
>>> +	 * Make sure the IB_SA_NL_QUERY_SENT flag is set before
>>> +	 * processing this query. If flag is not set, query can be accessed in
>>> +	 * another context while setting the flag and processing the query
>> will
>>> +	 * eventually release it causing a possible use-after-free.
>>> +	 */
>>> +	if (unlikely(!ib_sa_nl_query_sent(query))) {
>> Can't there be a race here where you check the flag (it isn't set) and before
>> you call wait_event() the flag is set and wake_up() is called which means you
>> will wait here forever?
> Should wait_event() catch that? That is,  if the flag is not set, wait_event() will sleep until the flag is set.
>
>  or worse, a timeout will happen the query will be
>> freed and them some other query will call wake_up() and we have again a
>> use-after-free.
> The request has been deleted from the request list by this time and therefore the timeout should have no impact here.
>
>
>>> +		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ib_nl_request_lock, flags);
>>> +		wait_event(wait_queue, ib_sa_nl_query_sent(query));
>> What if there are two queries sent to userspace, shouldn't you check and
>> make sure you got woken up by the right one setting the flag?
> The wait_event() is conditioned on the specific query (ib_sa_nl_query_sent(query)), not on the wait_queue itself.
>
>> Other than that, the entire solution makes it very complicated to reason with
>> (flags set/checked without locking etc) maybe we should just revert and fix it
>> the other way?
> The flag could certainly be set under the lock, which may reduce complications. 

We could use a lock or use atomic operations. However, the reason for not doing so was that
we have 1 writer and multiple readers of the IB_SA_NL_QUERY_SENT flag and the readers 
wouldnt mind reading a stale value. 

Would it still be better to have a lock for this flag? 

Thanks,
Divya

>
> Kaike
>