Date:   Wed, 22 Dec 2021 10:58:20 +0000
From:   Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
To:     Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@gmail.com>,
        Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>,
        Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        lksctp developers <linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org>,
        "H.P. Yarroll" <piggy@acm.org>, Hui Huang <hui.huang@nokia.com>,
        network dev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND 2/2] sctp: hold cached endpoints to prevent possible UAF
Message-ID: <YcMEzMHuCmvlQQpa@google.com>
References: <Ybtrs56tSBbmyt5c@google.com>
 <CADvbK_cBBDkGt8XLJo6N5TX2YQATS+udVWm8_=8f96=0B9tnTA@mail.gmail.com>
 <Ybtzr5ZmD/IKjycz@google.com>
 <Ybtz/0gflbkG5Q/0@google.com>
 <CADvbK_cexKiVATn=dPrWqoS0qM-bM0UcSkx8Xqz5ibEKQizDVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADvbK_cxMbYwkuN_ZUvHY-7ahc9ff+jbuPkKn6CA=yqMk=SKVw@mail.gmail.com>
 <YbuNZtV/pjDszTad@google.com>
 <CADvbK_f7wY_tknw5wTo369-2aRSvhhkETwmdu9tRbgfeyyTQng@mail.gmail.com>
 <YcBFSo/4WsMOls8Y@google.com>
 <CADvbK_dF-+3J5HOGsmmvA4by=STNLEaWszZjNOOAdEkrstpYEQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CADvbK_dF-+3J5HOGsmmvA4by=STNLEaWszZjNOOAdEkrstpYEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 21 Dec 2021, Xin Long wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 3:56 AM Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 19 Dec 2021, Xin Long wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 2:03 PM Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 16 Dec 2021, Xin Long wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > (
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 1:12 PM Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 12:14 PM Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, 16 Dec 2021, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, 16 Dec 2021, Xin Long wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 11:39 AM Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 16 Dec 2021, Xin Long wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 8:48 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 21:57:32 +0000 Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The cause of the resultant dump_stack() reported below is a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > dereference of a freed pointer to 'struct sctp_endpoint' in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > sctp_sock_dump().
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This race condition occurs when a transport is cached into its
> > > > > > > > > > > > > associated hash table followed by an endpoint/sock migration to a new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > association in sctp_assoc_migrate() prior to their subsequent use in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > sctp_diag_dump() which uses sctp_for_each_transport() to walk the hash
> > > > > > > > > > > > > table calling into sctp_sock_dump() where the dereference occurs.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > in sctp_sock_dump():
> > > > > > > > > > >         struct sock *sk = ep->base.sk;
> > > > > > > > > > >         ... <--[1]
> > > > > > > > > > >         lock_sock(sk);
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Do you mean in [1], the sk is peeled off and gets freed elsewhere?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 'ep' and 'sk' are both switched out for new ones in sctp_sock_migrate().
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > if that's true, it's still late to do sock_hold(sk) in your this patch.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > No, that's not right.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The schedule happens *inside* the lock_sock() call.
> > > > > > > > > Sorry, I don't follow this.
> > > > > > > > > We can't expect when the schedule happens, why do you think this
> > > > > > > > > can never be scheduled before the lock_sock() call?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > True, but I've had this running for hours and it hasn't reproduced.
> > > > > > I understand, but it's a crash, we shouldn't take any risk that it
> > > > > > will never happen.
> > > > > > you may try to add a usleep() before the lock_sock call to reproduce it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Without this patch, I can reproduce this in around 2 seconds.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The C-repro for this is pretty intense!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If you want to be *sure* that a schedule will never happen, we can
> > > > > > > > take a reference directly with:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >      ep = sctp_endpoint_hold(tsp->asoc->ep);
> > > > > > > >      sk = sock_hold(ep->base.sk);
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Which was my original plan before I soak tested this submitted patch
> > > > > > > > for hours without any sign of reproducing the issue.
> > > > > > we tried to not export sctp_obj_hold/put(), that's why we had
> > > > > > sctp_for_each_transport().
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ep itself holds a reference of sk when it's alive, so it's weird to do
> > > > > > these 2 together.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If the sock is peeled off or is being freed, we shouldn't dump this sock,
> > > > > > > > > and it's better to skip it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I guess we can do that too.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Are you suggesting sctp_sock_migrate() as the call site?
> > > > > > diff --git a/net/sctp/socket.c b/net/sctp/socket.c
> > > > > > index 85ac2e901ffc..56ea7a0e2add 100644
> > > > > > --- a/net/sctp/socket.c
> > > > > > +++ b/net/sctp/socket.c
> > > > > > @@ -9868,6 +9868,7 @@ static int sctp_sock_migrate(struct sock *oldsk,
> > > > > > struct sock *newsk,
> > > > > >                 inet_sk_set_state(newsk, SCTP_SS_ESTABLISHED);
> > > > > >         }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +       sock_set_flag(oldsk, SOCK_RCU_FREE);
> > > > > >         release_sock(newsk);
> > > > > >
> > > > > >         return 0;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > SOCK_RCU_FREE is set to the previous sk, so that this sk will not
> > > > > > be freed between rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock().
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also, when are you planning on testing the flag?
> > > > > > SOCK_RCU_FREE flag is used when freeing sk in sk_destruct(),
> > > > > > and if it's set, it will be freed in the next grace period of RCU.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Won't that suffer with the same issue(s)?
> > > > > > diff --git a/net/sctp/diag.c b/net/sctp/diag.c
> > > > > > index 7970d786c4a2..b4c4acd9e67e 100644
> > > > > > --- a/net/sctp/diag.c
> > > > > > +++ b/net/sctp/diag.c
> > > > > > @@ -309,16 +309,21 @@ static int sctp_tsp_dump_one(struct
> > > > > > sctp_transport *tsp, void *p)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  static int sctp_sock_dump(struct sctp_transport *tsp, void *p)
> > > > > >  {
> > > > > > -       struct sctp_endpoint *ep = tsp->asoc->ep;
> > > > > >         struct sctp_comm_param *commp = p;
> > > > > > -       struct sock *sk = ep->base.sk;
> > > > > >         struct sk_buff *skb = commp->skb;
> > > > > >         struct netlink_callback *cb = commp->cb;
> > > > > >         const struct inet_diag_req_v2 *r = commp->r;
> > > > > >         struct sctp_association *assoc;
> > > > > > +       struct sctp_endpoint *ep;
> > > > > > +       struct sock *sk;
> > > > > >         int err = 0;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +       rcu_read_lock();
> > > > > > +       ep = tsp->asoc->ep;
> > > > > > +       sk = ep->base.sk;
> > > > > >         lock_sock(sk);
> > > > > Unfortunately, this isn't going to work, as lock_sock() may sleep,
> > > > > and is not allowed to be called understand rcu_read_lock() :(
> > > >
> > > > Ah!
> > > >
> > > > How about my original solution of taking:
> > > >
> > > >   tsp->asoc->ep
> > > >
> > > > ... directly?
> > > >
> > > > If it already holds the sk, we should be golden?
> > > Both ep and sk could be destroyed at this moment.
> > > you can't try to hold an object that has already been destroyed.
> > > It holds the sk only when ep is still alive.
> > >
> > > I don't see a way to get this fix with the current transport hashtable.
> > > I will change to use port hashtable to dump sock/asocs for this.
> >
> > Right.  Cache invalidation is hard!
> >
> > Sure, if there is a better way, please go ahead.
> Hi, Jones,
> 
> Port hashtable doesn't work either as lock_sock can not be called
> under spin_lock().
> 
> I posted another patch where this issue can be fixed by moving ep free
> to call_rcu().
> It will be great if you are able to test it.

I certainly will.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog