Re: [RESEND 2/2] sctp: hold cached endpoints to prevent possible UAF

From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
To: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@gmail.com>,
	Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>,
	Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	lksctp developers <linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org>,
	"H.P. Yarroll" <piggy@acm.org>,
	Karl Knutson <karl@athena.chicago.il.us>,
	Jon Grimm <jgrimm@us.ibm.com>,
	Xingang Guo <xingang.guo@intel.com>,
	Hui Huang <hui.huang@nokia.com>,
	Sridhar Samudrala <sri@us.ibm.com>,
	Daisy Chang <daisyc@us.ibm.com>, Ryan Layer <rmlayer@us.ibm.com>,
	Kevin Gao <kevin.gao@intel.com>,
	network dev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND 2/2] sctp: hold cached endpoints to prevent possible UAF
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2021 17:14:39 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Ybtz/0gflbkG5Q/0@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Ybtzr5ZmD/IKjycz@google.com>

On Thu, 16 Dec 2021, Lee Jones wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Dec 2021, Xin Long wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 11:39 AM Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 16 Dec 2021, Xin Long wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 8:48 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 21:57:32 +0000 Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > > The cause of the resultant dump_stack() reported below is a
> > > > > > dereference of a freed pointer to 'struct sctp_endpoint' in
> > > > > > sctp_sock_dump().
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This race condition occurs when a transport is cached into its
> > > > > > associated hash table followed by an endpoint/sock migration to a new
> > > > > > association in sctp_assoc_migrate() prior to their subsequent use in
> > > > > > sctp_diag_dump() which uses sctp_for_each_transport() to walk the hash
> > > > > > table calling into sctp_sock_dump() where the dereference occurs.
> > >
> > > > in sctp_sock_dump():
> > > >         struct sock *sk = ep->base.sk;
> > > >         ... <--[1]
> > > >         lock_sock(sk);
> > > >
> > > > Do you mean in [1], the sk is peeled off and gets freed elsewhere?
> > >
> > > 'ep' and 'sk' are both switched out for new ones in sctp_sock_migrate().
> > >
> > > > if that's true, it's still late to do sock_hold(sk) in your this patch.
> > >
> > > No, that's not right.
> > >
> > > The schedule happens *inside* the lock_sock() call.
> > Sorry, I don't follow this.
> > We can't expect when the schedule happens, why do you think this
> > can never be scheduled before the lock_sock() call?
> 
> True, but I've had this running for hours and it hasn't reproduced.
> 
> Without this patch, I can reproduce this in around 2 seconds.
> 
> The C-repro for this is pretty intense!
> 
> If you want to be *sure* that a schedule will never happen, we can
> take a reference directly with:
> 
>      ep = sctp_endpoint_hold(tsp->asoc->ep);
>      sk = sock_hold(ep->base.sk);
> 
> Which was my original plan before I soak tested this submitted patch
> for hours without any sign of reproducing the issue.
> 
> > If the sock is peeled off or is being freed, we shouldn't dump this sock,
> > and it's better to skip it.
> 
> I guess we can do that too.
> 
> Are you suggesting sctp_sock_migrate() as the call site?

Also, when are you planning on testing the flag?

Won't that suffer with the same issue(s)?

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog