Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.37 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.37;
Date:   Wed, 6 Dec 2023 14:58:36 +0100
From:   Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
To:     Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Cc:     Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>,
        Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@netfilter.org>,
        Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>,
        netfilter-devel <netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org>,
        coreteam@netfilter.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Is xt_owner's owner_mt() racy with sock_orphan()? [worse with
 new TYPESAFE_BY_RCU file lifetime?]
Message-ID: <20231206-refinanzieren-werkhalle-22db5334f256@brauner>
References: <CAG48ez0TfTAkaRWFCTb44x=TWP_sDZVx-5U2hvfQSFOhghNrCA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAG48ez1hXk_cffp3dy-bYMcoyCCj-EySYR5SzYrNiRHGD=hOUg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAG48ez1hXk_cffp3dy-bYMcoyCCj-EySYR5SzYrNiRHGD=hOUg@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 06:08:29PM +0100, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 5:40 PM Jann Horn <jannh@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > I think this code is racy, but testing that seems like a pain...
> >
> > owner_mt() in xt_owner runs in context of a NF_INET_LOCAL_OUT or
> > NF_INET_POST_ROUTING hook. It first checks that sk->sk_socket is
> > non-NULL, then checks that sk->sk_socket->file is non-NULL, then
> > accesses the ->f_cred of that file.
> >
> > I don't see anything that protects this against a concurrent
> > sock_orphan(), which NULLs out the sk->sk_socket pointer, if we're in
> 
> Ah, and all the other users of ->sk_socket in net/netfilter/ do it
> under the sk_callback_lock... so I guess the fix would be to add the
> same in owner_mt?

In your other mail you wrote:

> I also think we have no guarantee here that the socket's ->file won't
> go away due to a concurrent __sock_release(), which could cause us to
> continue reading file credentials out of a file whose refcount has
> already dropped to zero?

Is this an independent worry or can the concurrent __sock_release()
issue only happen due to a sock_orphan() having happened first? I think
that it requires a sock_orphan() having happend, presumably because the
socket gets marked SOCK_DEAD and can thus be released via
__sock_release() asynchronously?

If so then taking sk_callback_lock() in owner_mt() should fix this.
(Otherwise we might need an additional get_active_file() on
sk->sk_socker->file in owner_mt() in addition to the other fix.)