Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:6 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:6;
Date:   Wed, 6 Dec 2023 21:42:29 +0100
From:   Phil Sutter <phil@nwl.cc>
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, Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.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: <ZXDctabBrEFMVxg2@orbyte.nwl.cc>
Mail-Followup-To: Phil Sutter <phil@nwl.cc>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        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, Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.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>
References: <CAG48ez0TfTAkaRWFCTb44x=TWP_sDZVx-5U2hvfQSFOhghNrCA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAG48ez1hXk_cffp3dy-bYMcoyCCj-EySYR5SzYrNiRHGD=hOUg@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZW+Yv6TR+EMBp03f@orbyte.nwl.cc>
 <CAG48ez2G4q-50242WRE01iaKfAhd0D+XT9Ry0uS767ceHEzHXA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAG48ez2G4q-50242WRE01iaKfAhd0D+XT9Ry0uS767ceHEzHXA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 05:28:44PM +0100, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 10:40 PM Phil Sutter <phil@nwl.cc> wrote:
> > 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?
> >
> > Sounds reasonable, although I wonder how likely a socket is to
> > orphan while netfilter is processing a packet it just sent.
> >
> > How about the attached patch? Not sure what hash to put into a Fixes:
> > tag given this is a day 1 bug and ipt_owner/ip6t_owner predate git.
> 
> Looks mostly reasonable to me; though I guess it's a bit weird to have
> two separate bailout paths for checking whether sk->sk_socket is NULL,
> where the first check can race, and the second check uses different
> logic for determining the return value; I don't know whether that
> actually matters semantically. But I'm not sure how to make it look
> nicer either.

I find the code pretty confusing since it combines three matches (socket
UID, socket GID and socket existence) via binary ops. The second bail
disregards socket existence bits, I assumed it was deliberate and thus
decided to leave the first part as-is.

> I guess you could add a READ_ONCE() around the first read to signal
> that that's a potentially racy read, but I don't feel strongly about
> that.

Is this just annotation or do you see a practical effect of using
READ_ONCE() there?

Either way, thanks for the review!

Phil