Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 9 Aug 2023 10:12:29 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH bpf-next] net: Fix slab-out-of-bounds in inet[6]_steal_sock | From | Martin KaFai Lau <> |
| |
On 8/9/23 8:55 AM, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote: > From: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@isovalent.com> > Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2023 16:08:31 +0100 >> On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 3:39 PM Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev> wrote: >>> >>> On 8/9/23 1:33 AM, Lorenz Bauer wrote: >>>> Kumar reported a KASAN splat in tcp_v6_rcv: >>>> >>>> bash-5.2# ./test_progs -t btf_skc_cls_ingress >>>> ... >>>> [ 51.810085] BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in tcp_v6_rcv+0x2d7d/0x3440 >>>> [ 51.810458] Read of size 2 at addr ffff8881053f038c by task test_progs/226 >>>> >>>> The problem is that inet[6]_steal_sock accesses sk->sk_protocol without >>>> accounting for request sockets. I added the check to ensure that we only >>>> every try to perform a reuseport lookup on a supported socket. >>>> >>>> It turns out that this isn't necessary at all. struct sock_common contains >>>> a skc_reuseport flag which indicates whether a socket is part of a >>> >>> Does it go back to the earlier discussion >>> (https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/7188429a-c380-14c8-57bb-9d05d3ba4e5e@linux.dev/) >>> that the sk->sk_reuseport is 1 from sk_clone for TCP_ESTABLISHED? It works >>> because there is sk->sk_reuseport"_cb" check going deeper into >>> reuseport_select_sock() but there is an extra inet6_ehashfn for all TCP_ESTABLISHED. >> >> Sigh, I'd forgotten about this... >> >> For the TPROXY TCP replacement use case we sk_assign the SYN to the >> listener, which creates the reqsk. We can let follow up packets pass >> without sk_assign since they will match the reqsk and convert to a >> fullsock via the usual route. At least that is what the test does. I'm >> not even sure what it means to redirect a random packet into an >> established TCP socket TBH. It'd probably be dropped?
It could act like an earlier early-demux for established sk? If the bpf prog has already looked up an established sk for other needs (eg. reading the sk local storage), it may as well bpf_sk_assign it to the skb. I don't have a use case for that but I also don't see why it won't work also.
>> >> For UDP, I'm not sure whether we even get into this situation? Doesn't >> seem like UDP sockets are cloned from each other, so we also shouldn't >> end up with a reuseport flag set erroneously. >> >> Things we could do if necessary: >> 1. Reset the flag in inet_csk_clone_lock like we do for SOCK_RCU_FREE > > I think we can't do this as sk_reuseport is inherited to twsk and used > in inet_bind_conflict(). > > >> 2. Duplicate the cb check into inet[6]_steal_sock > > or 3. Add sk_fullsock() test ?
yeah, probably adding sk_fullsock() is needed, may be something like(?):
if (!prefetched || !sk_fullsock(sk)) return sk;
| |