net/dccp/ipv6.c | 2 +- net/ipv6/tcp_ipv6.c | 4 +--- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
Syzkaller reported this warning:
------------[ cut here ]------------
WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 16 at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:156 inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0
Modules linked in:
CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 16 Comm: ksoftirqd/0 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc5 #26
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014
RIP: 0010:inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0
Code: 24 12 4c 89 e2 5b 48 c7 c7 98 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 d1 18 17 ff 4c 89 e6 5b 48 c7 c7 d0 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 bf 18 17 ff 0f 0b eb 83 <0f> 0b eb 97 0f 0b eb 87 0f 0b e9 68 ff ff ff 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00
RSP: 0018:ffffc9000008bd90 EFLAGS: 00010206
RAX: 0000000000000300 RBX: ffff88810b172a90 RCX: 0000000000000007
RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 0000000000000300 RDI: ffff88810b172a00
RBP: ffff88810b172a00 R08: ffff888104273c00 R09: 0000000000100007
R10: 0000000000020000 R11: 0000000000000006 R12: ffff88810b172a00
R13: 0000000000000004 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff888237c31f78
FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff888237c00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
CR2: 00007ffc63fecac8 CR3: 000000000342e000 CR4: 00000000000006f0
DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
Call Trace:
<TASK>
? __warn+0x88/0x130
? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0
? report_bug+0x18e/0x1a0
? handle_bug+0x53/0x90
? exc_invalid_op+0x18/0x70
? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20
? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0
__sk_destruct+0x2a/0x200
rcu_do_batch+0x1aa/0x530
? rcu_do_batch+0x13b/0x530
rcu_core+0x159/0x2f0
handle_softirqs+0xd3/0x2b0
? __pfx_smpboot_thread_fn+0x10/0x10
run_ksoftirqd+0x25/0x30
smpboot_thread_fn+0xdd/0x1d0
kthread+0xd3/0x100
? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
ret_from_fork+0x34/0x50
? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
</TASK>
---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
Its possible that two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv()/sk_forward_alloc_add()
concurrently when sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN with sk->sk_lock unlocked,
which triggers a data-race around sk->sk_forward_alloc:
tcp_v6_rcv
tcp_v6_do_rcv
skb_clone_and_charge_r
sk_rmem_schedule
__sk_mem_schedule
sk_forward_alloc_add()
skb_set_owner_r
sk_mem_charge
sk_forward_alloc_add()
__kfree_skb
skb_release_all
skb_release_head_state
sock_rfree
sk_mem_uncharge
sk_forward_alloc_add()
sk_mem_reclaim
// set local var reclaimable
__sk_mem_reclaim
sk_forward_alloc_add()
In this syzkaller testcase, two threads call
tcp_v6_do_rcv() with skb->truesize=768, the sk_forward_alloc changes like
this:
(cpu 1) | (cpu 2) | sk_forward_alloc
... | ... | 0
__sk_mem_schedule() | | +4096 = 4096
| __sk_mem_schedule() | +4096 = 8192
sk_mem_charge() | | -768 = 7424
| sk_mem_charge() | -768 = 6656
... | ... |
sk_mem_uncharge() | | +768 = 7424
reclaimable=7424 | |
| sk_mem_uncharge() | +768 = 8192
| reclaimable=8192 |
__sk_mem_reclaim() | | -4096 = 4096
| __sk_mem_reclaim() | -8192 = -4096 != 0
The skb_clone_and_charge_r() should not be called in tcp_v6_do_rcv() when
sk->sk_state is TCP_LISTEN, it happens later in tcp_v6_syn_recv_sock().
Fix the same issue in dccp_v6_do_rcv().
Suggested-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Fixes: e994b2f0fb92 ("tcp: do not lock listener to process SYN packets")
Signed-off-by: Wang Liang <wangliang74@huawei.com>
---
net/dccp/ipv6.c | 2 +-
net/ipv6/tcp_ipv6.c | 4 +---
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/dccp/ipv6.c b/net/dccp/ipv6.c
index da5dba120bc9..d6649246188d 100644
--- a/net/dccp/ipv6.c
+++ b/net/dccp/ipv6.c
@@ -618,7 +618,7 @@ static int dccp_v6_do_rcv(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
by tcp. Feel free to propose better solution.
--ANK (980728)
*/
- if (np->rxopt.all)
+ if (np->rxopt.all && sk->sk_state != DCCP_LISTEN)
opt_skb = skb_clone_and_charge_r(skb, sk);
if (sk->sk_state == DCCP_OPEN) { /* Fast path */
diff --git a/net/ipv6/tcp_ipv6.c b/net/ipv6/tcp_ipv6.c
index d71ab4e1efe1..c9de5ef8f267 100644
--- a/net/ipv6/tcp_ipv6.c
+++ b/net/ipv6/tcp_ipv6.c
@@ -1618,7 +1618,7 @@ int tcp_v6_do_rcv(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
by tcp. Feel free to propose better solution.
--ANK (980728)
*/
- if (np->rxopt.all)
+ if (np->rxopt.all && sk->sk_state != TCP_LISTEN)
opt_skb = skb_clone_and_charge_r(skb, sk);
if (sk->sk_state == TCP_ESTABLISHED) { /* Fast path */
@@ -1656,8 +1656,6 @@ int tcp_v6_do_rcv(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
if (reason)
goto reset;
}
- if (opt_skb)
- __kfree_skb(opt_skb);
return 0;
}
} else
--
2.34.1On Tue, Nov 5, 2024 at 8:46 AM Wang Liang <wangliang74@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> Syzkaller reported this warning:
> ------------[ cut here ]------------
> WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 16 at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:156 inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0
> Modules linked in:
> CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 16 Comm: ksoftirqd/0 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc5 #26
> Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014
> RIP: 0010:inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0
> Code: 24 12 4c 89 e2 5b 48 c7 c7 98 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 d1 18 17 ff 4c 89 e6 5b 48 c7 c7 d0 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 bf 18 17 ff 0f 0b eb 83 <0f> 0b eb 97 0f 0b eb 87 0f 0b e9 68 ff ff ff 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00
> RSP: 0018:ffffc9000008bd90 EFLAGS: 00010206
> RAX: 0000000000000300 RBX: ffff88810b172a90 RCX: 0000000000000007
> RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 0000000000000300 RDI: ffff88810b172a00
> RBP: ffff88810b172a00 R08: ffff888104273c00 R09: 0000000000100007
> R10: 0000000000020000 R11: 0000000000000006 R12: ffff88810b172a00
> R13: 0000000000000004 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff888237c31f78
> FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff888237c00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> CR2: 00007ffc63fecac8 CR3: 000000000342e000 CR4: 00000000000006f0
> DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
> DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
> Call Trace:
> <TASK>
> ? __warn+0x88/0x130
> ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0
> ? report_bug+0x18e/0x1a0
> ? handle_bug+0x53/0x90
> ? exc_invalid_op+0x18/0x70
> ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20
> ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0
> __sk_destruct+0x2a/0x200
> rcu_do_batch+0x1aa/0x530
> ? rcu_do_batch+0x13b/0x530
> rcu_core+0x159/0x2f0
> handle_softirqs+0xd3/0x2b0
> ? __pfx_smpboot_thread_fn+0x10/0x10
> run_ksoftirqd+0x25/0x30
> smpboot_thread_fn+0xdd/0x1d0
> kthread+0xd3/0x100
> ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
> ret_from_fork+0x34/0x50
> ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
> ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
> </TASK>
> ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
>
> Its possible that two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv()/sk_forward_alloc_add()
> concurrently when sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN with sk->sk_lock unlocked,
> which triggers a data-race around sk->sk_forward_alloc:
> tcp_v6_rcv
> tcp_v6_do_rcv
> skb_clone_and_charge_r
> sk_rmem_schedule
> __sk_mem_schedule
> sk_forward_alloc_add()
> skb_set_owner_r
> sk_mem_charge
> sk_forward_alloc_add()
> __kfree_skb
> skb_release_all
> skb_release_head_state
> sock_rfree
> sk_mem_uncharge
> sk_forward_alloc_add()
> sk_mem_reclaim
> // set local var reclaimable
> __sk_mem_reclaim
> sk_forward_alloc_add()
>
> In this syzkaller testcase, two threads call
> tcp_v6_do_rcv() with skb->truesize=768, the sk_forward_alloc changes like
> this:
> (cpu 1) | (cpu 2) | sk_forward_alloc
> ... | ... | 0
> __sk_mem_schedule() | | +4096 = 4096
> | __sk_mem_schedule() | +4096 = 8192
> sk_mem_charge() | | -768 = 7424
> | sk_mem_charge() | -768 = 6656
> ... | ... |
> sk_mem_uncharge() | | +768 = 7424
> reclaimable=7424 | |
> | sk_mem_uncharge() | +768 = 8192
> | reclaimable=8192 |
> __sk_mem_reclaim() | | -4096 = 4096
> | __sk_mem_reclaim() | -8192 = -4096 != 0
>
> The skb_clone_and_charge_r() should not be called in tcp_v6_do_rcv() when
> sk->sk_state is TCP_LISTEN, it happens later in tcp_v6_syn_recv_sock().
> Fix the same issue in dccp_v6_do_rcv().
>
> Suggested-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
> Fixes: e994b2f0fb92 ("tcp: do not lock listener to process SYN packets")
> Signed-off-by: Wang Liang <wangliang74@huawei.com>
Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Thanks.
On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 10:52:34AM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2024 at 8:46 AM Wang Liang <wangliang74@huawei.com> wrote:
> >
> > Syzkaller reported this warning:
> > ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 16 at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:156 inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0
> > Modules linked in:
> > CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 16 Comm: ksoftirqd/0 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc5 #26
> > Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014
> > RIP: 0010:inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0
> > Code: 24 12 4c 89 e2 5b 48 c7 c7 98 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 d1 18 17 ff 4c 89 e6 5b 48 c7 c7 d0 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 bf 18 17 ff 0f 0b eb 83 <0f> 0b eb 97 0f 0b eb 87 0f 0b e9 68 ff ff ff 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00
> > RSP: 0018:ffffc9000008bd90 EFLAGS: 00010206
> > RAX: 0000000000000300 RBX: ffff88810b172a90 RCX: 0000000000000007
> > RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 0000000000000300 RDI: ffff88810b172a00
> > RBP: ffff88810b172a00 R08: ffff888104273c00 R09: 0000000000100007
> > R10: 0000000000020000 R11: 0000000000000006 R12: ffff88810b172a00
> > R13: 0000000000000004 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff888237c31f78
> > FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff888237c00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> > CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> > CR2: 00007ffc63fecac8 CR3: 000000000342e000 CR4: 00000000000006f0
> > DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
> > DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
> > Call Trace:
> > <TASK>
> > ? __warn+0x88/0x130
> > ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0
> > ? report_bug+0x18e/0x1a0
> > ? handle_bug+0x53/0x90
> > ? exc_invalid_op+0x18/0x70
> > ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20
> > ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0
> > __sk_destruct+0x2a/0x200
> > rcu_do_batch+0x1aa/0x530
> > ? rcu_do_batch+0x13b/0x530
> > rcu_core+0x159/0x2f0
> > handle_softirqs+0xd3/0x2b0
> > ? __pfx_smpboot_thread_fn+0x10/0x10
> > run_ksoftirqd+0x25/0x30
> > smpboot_thread_fn+0xdd/0x1d0
> > kthread+0xd3/0x100
> > ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
> > ret_from_fork+0x34/0x50
> > ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
> > ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
> > </TASK>
> > ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
> >
> > Its possible that two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv()/sk_forward_alloc_add()
> > concurrently when sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN with sk->sk_lock unlocked,
> > which triggers a data-race around sk->sk_forward_alloc:
> > tcp_v6_rcv
> > tcp_v6_do_rcv
> > skb_clone_and_charge_r
> > sk_rmem_schedule
> > __sk_mem_schedule
> > sk_forward_alloc_add()
> > skb_set_owner_r
> > sk_mem_charge
> > sk_forward_alloc_add()
> > __kfree_skb
> > skb_release_all
> > skb_release_head_state
> > sock_rfree
> > sk_mem_uncharge
> > sk_forward_alloc_add()
> > sk_mem_reclaim
> > // set local var reclaimable
> > __sk_mem_reclaim
> > sk_forward_alloc_add()
> >
> > In this syzkaller testcase, two threads call
> > tcp_v6_do_rcv() with skb->truesize=768, the sk_forward_alloc changes like
> > this:
> > (cpu 1) | (cpu 2) | sk_forward_alloc
> > ... | ... | 0
> > __sk_mem_schedule() | | +4096 = 4096
> > | __sk_mem_schedule() | +4096 = 8192
> > sk_mem_charge() | | -768 = 7424
> > | sk_mem_charge() | -768 = 6656
> > ... | ... |
> > sk_mem_uncharge() | | +768 = 7424
> > reclaimable=7424 | |
> > | sk_mem_uncharge() | +768 = 8192
> > | reclaimable=8192 |
> > __sk_mem_reclaim() | | -4096 = 4096
> > | __sk_mem_reclaim() | -8192 = -4096 != 0
> >
> > The skb_clone_and_charge_r() should not be called in tcp_v6_do_rcv() when
> > sk->sk_state is TCP_LISTEN, it happens later in tcp_v6_syn_recv_sock().
> > Fix the same issue in dccp_v6_do_rcv().
> >
> > Suggested-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
> > Fixes: e994b2f0fb92 ("tcp: do not lock listener to process SYN packets")
> > Signed-off-by: Wang Liang <wangliang74@huawei.com>
>
> Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Hi Wang Liang,
Please post a non-RFC variant of this patch so it can be considered for
inclusion in net. And please include Eric's Reviewed-by tag.
Thanks!
在 2024/11/6 23:14, Simon Horman 写道:
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 10:52:34AM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2024 at 8:46 AM Wang Liang <wangliang74@huawei.com> wrote:
>>> Syzkaller reported this warning:
>>> ------------[ cut here ]------------
>>> WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 16 at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:156 inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0
>>> Modules linked in:
>>> CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 16 Comm: ksoftirqd/0 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc5 #26
>>> Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014
>>> RIP: 0010:inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0
>>> Code: 24 12 4c 89 e2 5b 48 c7 c7 98 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 d1 18 17 ff 4c 89 e6 5b 48 c7 c7 d0 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 bf 18 17 ff 0f 0b eb 83 <0f> 0b eb 97 0f 0b eb 87 0f 0b e9 68 ff ff ff 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00
>>> RSP: 0018:ffffc9000008bd90 EFLAGS: 00010206
>>> RAX: 0000000000000300 RBX: ffff88810b172a90 RCX: 0000000000000007
>>> RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 0000000000000300 RDI: ffff88810b172a00
>>> RBP: ffff88810b172a00 R08: ffff888104273c00 R09: 0000000000100007
>>> R10: 0000000000020000 R11: 0000000000000006 R12: ffff88810b172a00
>>> R13: 0000000000000004 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff888237c31f78
>>> FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff888237c00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
>>> CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
>>> CR2: 00007ffc63fecac8 CR3: 000000000342e000 CR4: 00000000000006f0
>>> DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
>>> DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
>>> Call Trace:
>>> <TASK>
>>> ? __warn+0x88/0x130
>>> ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0
>>> ? report_bug+0x18e/0x1a0
>>> ? handle_bug+0x53/0x90
>>> ? exc_invalid_op+0x18/0x70
>>> ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20
>>> ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0
>>> __sk_destruct+0x2a/0x200
>>> rcu_do_batch+0x1aa/0x530
>>> ? rcu_do_batch+0x13b/0x530
>>> rcu_core+0x159/0x2f0
>>> handle_softirqs+0xd3/0x2b0
>>> ? __pfx_smpboot_thread_fn+0x10/0x10
>>> run_ksoftirqd+0x25/0x30
>>> smpboot_thread_fn+0xdd/0x1d0
>>> kthread+0xd3/0x100
>>> ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
>>> ret_from_fork+0x34/0x50
>>> ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
>>> ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
>>> </TASK>
>>> ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
>>>
>>> Its possible that two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv()/sk_forward_alloc_add()
>>> concurrently when sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN with sk->sk_lock unlocked,
>>> which triggers a data-race around sk->sk_forward_alloc:
>>> tcp_v6_rcv
>>> tcp_v6_do_rcv
>>> skb_clone_and_charge_r
>>> sk_rmem_schedule
>>> __sk_mem_schedule
>>> sk_forward_alloc_add()
>>> skb_set_owner_r
>>> sk_mem_charge
>>> sk_forward_alloc_add()
>>> __kfree_skb
>>> skb_release_all
>>> skb_release_head_state
>>> sock_rfree
>>> sk_mem_uncharge
>>> sk_forward_alloc_add()
>>> sk_mem_reclaim
>>> // set local var reclaimable
>>> __sk_mem_reclaim
>>> sk_forward_alloc_add()
>>>
>>> In this syzkaller testcase, two threads call
>>> tcp_v6_do_rcv() with skb->truesize=768, the sk_forward_alloc changes like
>>> this:
>>> (cpu 1) | (cpu 2) | sk_forward_alloc
>>> ... | ... | 0
>>> __sk_mem_schedule() | | +4096 = 4096
>>> | __sk_mem_schedule() | +4096 = 8192
>>> sk_mem_charge() | | -768 = 7424
>>> | sk_mem_charge() | -768 = 6656
>>> ... | ... |
>>> sk_mem_uncharge() | | +768 = 7424
>>> reclaimable=7424 | |
>>> | sk_mem_uncharge() | +768 = 8192
>>> | reclaimable=8192 |
>>> __sk_mem_reclaim() | | -4096 = 4096
>>> | __sk_mem_reclaim() | -8192 = -4096 != 0
>>>
>>> The skb_clone_and_charge_r() should not be called in tcp_v6_do_rcv() when
>>> sk->sk_state is TCP_LISTEN, it happens later in tcp_v6_syn_recv_sock().
>>> Fix the same issue in dccp_v6_do_rcv().
>>>
>>> Suggested-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
>>> Fixes: e994b2f0fb92 ("tcp: do not lock listener to process SYN packets")
>>> Signed-off-by: Wang Liang <wangliang74@huawei.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
> Hi Wang Liang,
>
> Please post a non-RFC variant of this patch so it can be considered for
> inclusion in net. And please include Eric's Reviewed-by tag.
>
> Thanks!
Thanks very much for your suggestion!
I have send the patch("[PATCH net] net: fix data-races around
sk->sk_forward_alloc") with Reviewed-by tag, and remove the RFC.
Please check it.
© 2016 - 2024 Red Hat, Inc.