Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Hawkins Jiawei <yin31149@gmail.com>
To:     guwen@linux.alibaba.com
Cc:     18801353760@163.com, andrii@kernel.org, ast@kernel.org,
        borisp@nvidia.com, bpf@vger.kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net,
        davem@davemloft.net, dsahern@kernel.org, edumazet@google.com,
        john.fastabend@gmail.com, kafai@fb.com, kgraul@linux.ibm.com,
        kpsingh@kernel.org, kuba@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        pabeni@redhat.com, paskripkin@gmail.com, skhan@linuxfoundation.org,
        songliubraving@fb.com,
        syzbot+5f26f85569bd179c18ce@syzkaller.appspotmail.com,
        syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, yhs@fb.com, yin31149@gmail.com,
        yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, chuck.lever@oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] smc: fix refcount bug in sk_psock_get (2)
Date:   Wed, 13 Jul 2022 11:10:05 +0800
Message-Id: <20220713031005.58220-1-yin31149@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <0408b739-3506-608a-4284-1086443a154d@linux.alibaba.com>
References: <0408b739-3506-608a-4284-1086443a154d@linux.alibaba.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 at 15:21, Wen Gu <guwen@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>Although syzbot found this issue in SMC, seems that it is a generic
>issue about sk_user_data usage? Fixing it from SK_USER_DATA_PTRMASK
>as you plan should be a right way.

Thanks for your advice. In fact, I found a more
general patch, but it seems that it has not 
been merged until now.

In this bug, the problem is that smc and psock, both use
sk_user_data field to save their private data. So they 
will treat field in their own way.

>> in smc_switch_to_fallback(), and set smc->clcsock->sk_user_data
>> to origin smc in smc_fback_replace_callbacks().
>> 
>> Later, sk_psock_get() will treat the smc->clcsock->sk_user_data
>> as sk_psock type, which triggers the refcnt warning.

So in the patch [PATCH RFC 1/5] net: Add distinct sk_psock field,
psock private data will be moved to the sk_psock field, shown as
below
> The sk_psock facility populates the sk_user_data field with the
> address of an extra bit of metadata. User space sockets never
> populate the sk_user_data field, so this has worked out fine.
> 
> However, kernel consumers such as the RPC client and server do
> populate the sk_user_data field. The sk_psock() function cannot tell
> that the content of sk_user_data does not point to psock metadata,
> so it will happily return a pointer to something else, cast to a
> struct sk_psock.
> 
> Thus kernel consumers and psock currently cannot co-exist.
> 
> We could educate sk_psock() to return NULL if sk_user_data does
> not point to a struct sk_psock. However, a more general solution
> that enables full co-existence psock and other uses of sk_user_data
> might be more interesting.
> 
> Move the struct sk_psock address to its own pointer field so that
> the contents of the sk_user_data field is preserved.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/skmsg.h |    2 +-
>  include/net/sock.h    |    4 +++-
>  net/core/skmsg.c      |    6 +++---
>  3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/skmsg.h b/include/linux/skmsg.h
> index c5a2d6f50f25..5ef3a07c5b6c 100644
> --- a/include/linux/skmsg.h
> +++ b/include/linux/skmsg.h
> @@ -277,7 +277,7 @@ static inline void sk_msg_sg_copy_clear(
>			struct sk_msg *msg, u32 start)
>  
>  static inline struct sk_psock *sk_psock(const struct sock *sk)
>  {
> -	return rcu_dereference_sk_user_data(sk);
> +	return rcu_dereference(sk->sk_psock);
>  }
>  
>  static inline void sk_psock_set_state(struct sk_psock *psock,
> diff --git a/include/net/sock.h b/include/net/sock.h
> index c4b91fc19b9c..d2a513169527 100644
> --- a/include/net/sock.h
> +++ b/include/net/sock.h
> @@ -327,7 +327,8 @@ struct sk_filter;
>    *	@sk_tskey: counter to disambiguate concurrent tstamp requests
>    *	@sk_zckey: counter to order MSG_ZEROCOPY notifications
>    *	@sk_socket: Identd and reporting IO signals
> -  *	@sk_user_data: RPC layer private data
> +  *	@sk_user_data: Upper layer private data
> +  *	@sk_psock: socket policy data (bpf)
>    *	@sk_frag: cached page frag
>    *	@sk_peek_off: current peek_offset value
>    *	@sk_send_head: front of stuff to transmit
> @@ -519,6 +520,7 @@ struct sock {
>  
>  	struct socket		*sk_socket;
>  	void			*sk_user_data;
> +	struct sk_psock	__rcu	*sk_psock;
>  #ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY
>  	void			*sk_security;
>  #endif
> diff --git a/net/core/skmsg.c b/net/core/skmsg.c
> index cc381165ea08..2b3d01d92790 100644
> --- a/net/core/skmsg.c
> +++ b/net/core/skmsg.c
> @@ -695,7 +695,7 @@ struct sk_psock *sk_psock_init(struct sock *sk,
>					int node)
>  
>  	write_lock_bh(&sk->sk_callback_lock);
>  
> -	if (sk->sk_user_data) {
> +	if (sk->sk_psock) {
>  		psock = ERR_PTR(-EBUSY);
>  		goto out;
>  	}
> @@ -726,7 +726,7 @@ struct sk_psock *sk_psock_init(struct sock *sk,
>					int node)
>  	sk_psock_set_state(psock, SK_PSOCK_TX_ENABLED);
>  	refcount_set(&psock->refcnt, 1);
>  
> -	rcu_assign_sk_user_data_nocopy(sk, psock);
> +	rcu_assign_pointer(sk->sk_psock, psock);
>  	sock_hold(sk);
>  
>  out:
> @@ -825,7 +825,7 @@ void sk_psock_drop(struct sock *sk,
>					struct sk_psock *psock)
>  {
>  	write_lock_bh(&sk->sk_callback_lock);
>  	sk_psock_restore_proto(sk, psock);
> -	rcu_assign_sk_user_data(sk, NULL);
> +	rcu_assign_pointer(sk->sk_psock, NULL);
>  	if (psock->progs.stream_parser)
>  		sk_psock_stop_strp(sk, psock);
>  	else if (psock->progs.stream_verdict || psock->progs.skb_verdict)

I have tested this patch and the reproducer did not trigger any issue.

In Patchwork website, this patch fails the checks on
netdev/cc_maintainers. If this patch fails for some other reasons,
I will still fix this bug from SK_USER_DATA_PTRMASK,
as a temporary solution.