Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 26 Jul 2023 10:20:27 +0300 | From | Andrew Kanner <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3] drivers: net: prevent tun_get_user() to exceed xdp size limits |
| |
On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 10:09:53AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 11:54 PM Andrew Kanner <andrew.kanner@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Syzkaller reported the following issue: > > ======================================= > > Too BIG xdp->frame_sz = 131072 > > WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 5020 at net/core/filter.c:4121 > > ____bpf_xdp_adjust_tail net/core/filter.c:4121 [inline] > > WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 5020 at net/core/filter.c:4121 > > bpf_xdp_adjust_tail+0x466/0xa10 net/core/filter.c:4103 > > ... > > Call Trace: > > <TASK> > > bpf_prog_4add87e5301a4105+0x1a/0x1c > > __bpf_prog_run include/linux/filter.h:600 [inline] > > bpf_prog_run_xdp include/linux/filter.h:775 [inline] > > bpf_prog_run_generic_xdp+0x57e/0x11e0 net/core/dev.c:4721 > > netif_receive_generic_xdp net/core/dev.c:4807 [inline] > > do_xdp_generic+0x35c/0x770 net/core/dev.c:4866 > > tun_get_user+0x2340/0x3ca0 drivers/net/tun.c:1919 > > tun_chr_write_iter+0xe8/0x210 drivers/net/tun.c:2043 > > call_write_iter include/linux/fs.h:1871 [inline] > > new_sync_write fs/read_write.c:491 [inline] > > vfs_write+0x650/0xe40 fs/read_write.c:584 > > ksys_write+0x12f/0x250 fs/read_write.c:637 > > do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline] > > do_syscall_64+0x38/0xb0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80 > > entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd > > > > xdp->frame_sz > PAGE_SIZE check was introduced in commit c8741e2bfe87 > > ("xdp: Allow bpf_xdp_adjust_tail() to grow packet size"). But > > tun_get_user() still provides an execution path with do_xdp_generic() > > and exceed XDP limits for packet size. > > > > Using the syzkaller repro with reduced packet size it was also > > discovered that XDP_PACKET_HEADROOM is not checked in > > tun_can_build_skb(), although pad may be incremented in > > tun_build_skb(). > > > > If we move the limit check from tun_can_build_skb() to tun_build_skb() > > we will make xdp to be used only in tun_build_skb(), without falling > > in tun_alloc_skb(), etc. And moreover we will drop the packet which > > can't be processed in tun_build_skb(). > > > > Reported-and-tested-by: syzbot+f817490f5bd20541b90a@syzkaller.appspotmail.com > > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/000000000000774b9205f1d8a80d@google.com/T/ > > Link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=5335c7c62bfff89bbb1c8f14cdabebe91909060f > > Fixes: 7df13219d757 ("tun: reserve extra headroom only when XDP is set") > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Kanner <andrew.kanner@gmail.com> > > --- > > > > Notes: > > V2 -> V3: > > * attach the forgotten changelog > > V1 -> V2: > > * merged 2 patches in 1, fixing both issues: WARN_ON_ONCE with > > syzkaller repro and missing XDP_PACKET_HEADROOM in pad > > * changed the title and description of the execution path, suggested > > by Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> > > * move the limit check from tun_can_build_skb() to tun_build_skb() to > > remove duplication and locking issue, and also drop the packet in > > case of a failed check - noted by Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> > > Acked-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> > > Thanks > > > > > drivers/net/tun.c | 7 +++---- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/tun.c b/drivers/net/tun.c > > index d75456adc62a..7c2b05ce0421 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/tun.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/tun.c > > @@ -1594,10 +1594,6 @@ static bool tun_can_build_skb(struct tun_struct *tun, struct tun_file *tfile, > > if (zerocopy) > > return false; > > > > - if (SKB_DATA_ALIGN(len + TUN_RX_PAD) + > > - SKB_DATA_ALIGN(sizeof(struct skb_shared_info)) > PAGE_SIZE) > > - return false; > > - > > return true; > > } > > > > @@ -1673,6 +1669,9 @@ static struct sk_buff *tun_build_skb(struct tun_struct *tun, > > buflen += SKB_DATA_ALIGN(len + pad); > > rcu_read_unlock(); > > > > + if (buflen > PAGE_SIZE) > > + return ERR_PTR(-EFAULT); > > + > > alloc_frag->offset = ALIGN((u64)alloc_frag->offset, SMP_CACHE_BYTES); > > if (unlikely(!skb_page_frag_refill(buflen, alloc_frag, GFP_KERNEL))) > > return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); > > -- > > 2.39.3 > > >
Thanks, Jason.
Can anyone point me to some tests other than tools/testing/selftests/net/tun.c?
This one shows: PASSED: 5 / 5 tests passed.
I'm trying to figure out if we're dropping more packets than expected with this patch. Not sure if the test above is enough.
-- Andrew Kanner
| |