From: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
To: Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@fb.com>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>,
Kernel Team <kernel-team@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 9/9] selftests/bpf: Add refcounted_kptr tests
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2023 00:17:47 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <atfviesiidev4hu53hzravmtlau3wdodm2vqs7rd7tnwft34e3@xktodqeqevir> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230415201811.343116-10-davemarchevsky@fb.com>
On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 10:18:11PM CEST, Dave Marchevsky wrote:
> Test refcounted local kptr functionality added in previous patches in
> the series.
>
> Usecases which pass verification:
>
> * Add refcounted local kptr to both tree and list. Then, read and -
> possibly, depending on test variant - delete from tree, then list.
> * Also test doing read-and-maybe-delete in opposite order
> * Stash a refcounted local kptr in a map_value, then add it to a
> rbtree. Read from both, possibly deleting after tree read.
> * Add refcounted local kptr to both tree and list. Then, try reading and
> deleting twice from one of the collections.
> * bpf_refcount_acquire of just-added non-owning ref should work, as
> should bpf_refcount_acquire of owning ref just out of bpf_obj_new
>
> Usecases which fail verification:
>
> * The simple successful bpf_refcount_acquire cases from above should
> both fail to verify if the newly-acquired owning ref is not dropped
>
> Signed-off-by: Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@fb.com>
> ---
> [...]
> +SEC("?tc")
> +__failure __msg("Unreleased reference id=3 alloc_insn=21")
> +long rbtree_refcounted_node_ref_escapes(void *ctx)
> +{
> + struct node_acquire *n, *m;
> +
> + n = bpf_obj_new(typeof(*n));
> + if (!n)
> + return 1;
> +
> + bpf_spin_lock(&glock);
> + bpf_rbtree_add(&groot, &n->node, less);
> + /* m becomes an owning ref but is never drop'd or added to a tree */
> + m = bpf_refcount_acquire(n);
I am analyzing the set (and I'll reply in detail to the cover letter), but this
stood out.
Isn't this going to be problematic if n has refcount == 1 and is dropped
internally by bpf_rbtree_add? Are we sure this can never occur? It took me some
time, but the following schedule seems problematic.
CPU 0 CPU 1
n = bpf_obj_new
lock(lock1)
bpf_rbtree_add(rbtree1, n)
m = bpf_rbtree_acquire(n)
unlock(lock1)
kptr_xchg(map, m) // move to map
// at this point, refcount = 2
m = kptr_xchg(map, NULL)
lock(lock2)
lock(lock1) bpf_rbtree_add(rbtree2, m)
p = bpf_rbtree_first(rbtree1) if (!RB_EMPTY_NODE) bpf_obj_drop_impl(m) // A
bpf_rbtree_remove(rbtree1, p)
unlock(lock1)
bpf_obj_drop(p) // B
bpf_refcount_acquire(m) // use-after-free
...
B will decrement refcount from 1 to 0, after which bpf_refcount_acquire is
basically performing a use-after-free (when fortunate, one will get a
WARN_ON_ONCE splat for 0 to 1, otherwise, a silent refcount raise for some
different object).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-21 22:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-04-15 20:18 [PATCH v2 bpf-next 0/9] Shared ownership for local kptrs Dave Marchevsky
2023-04-15 20:18 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 1/9] bpf: Remove btf_field_offs, use btf_record's fields instead Dave Marchevsky
2023-04-15 20:18 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 2/9] bpf: Introduce opaque bpf_refcount struct and add btf_record plumbing Dave Marchevsky
2023-04-15 20:18 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 3/9] bpf: Support refcounted local kptrs in existing semantics Dave Marchevsky
2023-04-15 20:18 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 4/9] bpf: Add bpf_refcount_acquire kfunc Dave Marchevsky
2023-04-15 20:18 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 5/9] bpf: Migrate bpf_rbtree_add and bpf_list_push_{front,back} to possibly fail Dave Marchevsky
2023-04-16 1:11 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-04-17 18:08 ` Dave Marchevsky
2023-04-15 20:18 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 6/9] selftests/bpf: Modify linked_list tests to work with macro-ified inserts Dave Marchevsky
2023-04-15 20:18 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 7/9] bpf: Migrate bpf_rbtree_remove to possibly fail Dave Marchevsky
2023-04-15 20:18 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 8/9] bpf: Centralize btf_field-specific initialization logic Dave Marchevsky
2023-04-15 20:18 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 9/9] selftests/bpf: Add refcounted_kptr tests Dave Marchevsky
2023-04-21 22:17 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi [this message]
2023-04-21 23:49 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-04-22 2:06 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2023-04-22 2:18 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-04-25 6:53 ` Dave Marchevsky
2023-04-16 0:50 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 0/9] Shared ownership for local kptrs patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
2023-04-22 2:03 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2023-04-22 3:21 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-04-22 18:42 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2023-04-22 21:25 ` Alexei Starovoitov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=atfviesiidev4hu53hzravmtlau3wdodm2vqs7rd7tnwft34e3@xktodqeqevir \
--to=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davemarchevsky@fb.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).