[PATCH v2] bridge: Fix possible races between assigning rx_handler_data and setting IFF_BRIDGE_PORT bit

* [PATCH v2] bridge: Fix possible races between assigning rx_handler_data and setting IFF_BRIDGE_PORT bit
@ 2021-04-28 14:38 zhangzhengming
  2021-04-29 22:40 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: zhangzhengming @ 2021-04-28 14:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: roopa, nikolay, davem, kuba
  Cc: bridge, netdev, zhangzhengming, wangxiaogang3, xuhanbing

From: Zhang Zhengming <zhangzhengming@huawei.com>

There is a crash in the function br_get_link_af_size_filtered,
as the port_exists(dev) is true and the rx_handler_data of dev is NULL.
But the rx_handler_data of dev is correct saved in vmcore.

The oops looks something like:
 ...
 pc : br_get_link_af_size_filtered+0x28/0x1c8 [bridge]
 ...
 Call trace:
  br_get_link_af_size_filtered+0x28/0x1c8 [bridge]
  if_nlmsg_size+0x180/0x1b0
  rtnl_calcit.isra.12+0xf8/0x148
  rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x334/0x370
  netlink_rcv_skb+0x64/0x130
  rtnetlink_rcv+0x28/0x38
  netlink_unicast+0x1f0/0x250
  netlink_sendmsg+0x310/0x378
  sock_sendmsg+0x4c/0x70
  __sys_sendto+0x120/0x150
  __arm64_sys_sendto+0x30/0x40
  el0_svc_common+0x78/0x130
  el0_svc_handler+0x38/0x78
  el0_svc+0x8/0xc

In br_add_if(), we found there is no guarantee that
assigning rx_handler_data to dev->rx_handler_data
will before setting the IFF_BRIDGE_PORT bit of priv_flags.
So there is a possible data competition:

CPU 0:                                                        CPU 1:
(RCU read lock)                                               (RTNL lock)
rtnl_calcit()                                                 br_add_slave()
  if_nlmsg_size()                                               br_add_if()
    br_get_link_af_size_filtered()                              -> netdev_rx_handler_register
                                                                    ...
                                                                    // The order is not guaranteed
      ...                                                           -> dev->priv_flags |= IFF_BRIDGE_PORT;
      // The IFF_BRIDGE_PORT bit of priv_flags has been set
      -> if (br_port_exists(dev)) {
        // The dev->rx_handler_data has NOT been assigned
        -> p = br_port_get_rcu(dev);
        ....
                                                                    -> rcu_assign_pointer(dev->rx_handler_data, rx_handler_data);
                                                                     ...

Fix it in br_get_link_af_size_filtered, using br_port_get_check_rcu() and checking the return value.

Signed-off-by: Zhang Zhengming <zhangzhengming@huawei.com>
Reviewed-by: Zhao Lei <zhaolei69@huawei.com>
Reviewed-by: Wang Xiaogang <wangxiaogang3@huawei.com>
Suggested-by: Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@nvidia.com>
---
 net/bridge/br_netlink.c | 5 +++--
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/bridge/br_netlink.c b/net/bridge/br_netlink.c
index f2b1343..ed5aba2 100644
--- a/net/bridge/br_netlink.c
+++ b/net/bridge/br_netlink.c
@@ -103,8 +103,9 @@ static size_t br_get_link_af_size_filtered(const struct net_device *dev,
 
 	rcu_read_lock();
 	if (netif_is_bridge_port(dev)) {
-		p = br_port_get_rcu(dev);
-		vg = nbp_vlan_group_rcu(p);
+		p = br_port_get_check_rcu(dev);
+		if (p)
+			vg = nbp_vlan_group_rcu(p);
 	} else if (dev->priv_flags & IFF_EBRIDGE) {
 		br = netdev_priv(dev);
 		vg = br_vlan_group_rcu(br);
-- 
2.7.4


^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread