linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
To: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-audit@redhat.com, Paul Moore <pmoore@redhat.com>,
	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
	David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>,
	Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
	netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	syzkaller <syzkaller@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: netlink: GPF in sock_sndtimeo
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 05:02:15 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161212100215.GA1305@madcap2.tricolour.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAM_iQpV2GuKhR_1tD5jjACeD+pajJLws08CLmeYAo+rsjxvB0A@mail.gmail.com>

On 2016-12-09 20:13, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 3:01 AM, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On 2016-12-08 22:57, Cong Wang wrote:
> >> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> > I also tried to extend Cong Wang's idea to attempt to proactively respond to a
> >> > NETLINK_URELEASE on the audit_sock and reset it, but ran into a locking error
> >> > stack dump using mutex_lock(&audit_cmd_mutex) in the notifier callback.
> >> > Eliminating the lock since the sock is dead anways eliminates the error.
> >> >
> >> > Is it safe?  I'll resubmit if this looks remotely sane.  Meanwhile I'll try to
> >> > get the test case to compile.
> >>
> >> It doesn't look safe, because 'audit_sock', 'audit_nlk_portid' and 'audit_pid'
> >> are updated as a whole and race between audit_receive_msg() and
> >> NETLINK_URELEASE.
> >
> > This is what I expected and why I originally added the mutex lock in the
> > callback...  The dumps I got were bare with no wrapper identifying the
> > process context or specific error, so I'm at a bit of a loss how to
> > solve this (without thinking more about it) other than instinctively
> > removing the mutex.
> 
> Netlink notifier can safely be converted to blocking one, I will send
> a patch.

I had a quick look at how that might happen.  The netlink notifier chain
is atomic.  Would the registered callback funciton need to spawn a
one-time thread to avoid blocking?

> But I seriously doubt you really need NETLINK_URELEASE here,
> it adds nothing but overhead, b/c the netlink notifier is called on
> every netlink socket in the system, but for net exit path, that is
> relatively a slow path.

I was a bit concerned about its overhead, but was hoping to update
audit_sock more quickly in the case of a sock shutting down for any
reason.

> Also, kauditd_send_skb() needs audit_cmd_mutex too.

Agreed.

> I will send a formal patch.

I had a look at your patch.  It looks attractively simple.  The audit
next tree has patches queued that add an audit_reset function that will
require more work.  I still see some potential gaps.

- If the process messes up (or the sock lookup messes up) it is reset
  in the kauditd thread under the audit_cmd_mutex.

- If the process exits normally or is replaced due to an audit_replace
  error, it is reset from audit_receive_skb under the audit_cmd_mutex.

- If the process dies before the kauditd thread notices, either reap it
  via notifier callback or it needs a check on net exit to reset.  This
  last one appears necessary to decrement the sock refcount so the sock
  can be released in netlink_kernel_release().

If we want to be proactive and use the netlink notifier, we assume the
overhead of adding to the netlink notifier chain and eliminate all the
other reset calls under the kauditd thread.  If we are ok being
reactionary, then we'll at least need the net exit check on audit_sock.

Have I understood this correctly?

I'll follow with a patch based on audit#next

There will be an upstream merge conflict between audit#next and net#next
due to the removal of:
	RCU_INIT_POINTER(aunet->nlsk, NULL);                                                        
	synchronize_net();
from the end of audit_net_exit().  This patch should probably go through
the audit maintainer due to the other anticipated merge conflicts.

> Thanks.

- RGB

--
Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
Kernel Security Engineering, Base Operating Systems, Red Hat
Remote, Ottawa, Canada
Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635

  parent reply	other threads:[~2016-12-12 10:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <CACT4Y+aG1+91U1PWMTwpE_6vbEuqG7CdLCM1H=3WVJWtz=>
     [not found] ` <CAM_iQpVeLvfYV+1jX1ZKOntZim4roof4=>
2016-11-29 16:48   ` netlink: GPF in sock_sndtimeo Richard Guy Briggs
2016-11-29 23:13     ` Cong Wang
2016-11-30  4:52       ` Richard Guy Briggs
2016-12-09  6:02         ` Richard Guy Briggs
2016-12-09  6:57           ` Cong Wang
2016-12-09 11:01             ` Richard Guy Briggs
2016-12-10  4:13               ` Cong Wang
2016-12-10  7:40                 ` Cong Wang
2016-12-12 10:07                   ` Dmitry Vyukov
2016-12-13  7:51                   ` Richard Guy Briggs
2016-12-13  8:28                     ` Richard Guy Briggs
2016-12-12 10:02                 ` Richard Guy Briggs [this message]
2016-12-12 10:03                   ` [PATCH v2] audit: use proper refcount locking on audit_sock Richard Guy Briggs
2016-12-12 17:10                     ` Paul Moore
2016-12-13  4:49                       ` Richard Guy Briggs
2016-12-12 20:18                     ` Paul Moore
2016-12-13  5:10                       ` Richard Guy Briggs
2016-12-13 15:01                         ` Richard Guy Briggs
2016-12-12 23:58                     ` Cong Wang
2016-12-13 14:55                       ` Richard Guy Briggs
2016-12-13  0:10                   ` netlink: GPF in sock_sndtimeo Cong Wang
2016-12-13 10:52                     ` Richard Guy Briggs
2016-12-14  0:17                       ` Cong Wang
2016-12-14  4:17                         ` Richard Guy Briggs
2016-12-13 15:03                   ` [RFC PATCH v3] audit: use proper refcount locking on audit_sock Richard Guy Briggs
2016-12-13 20:50                     ` Paul Moore
2016-12-14  0:19                     ` Cong Wang
2016-12-14  4:00                       ` Richard Guy Briggs
2016-12-14  5:36                         ` Cong Wang
2016-12-09 10:49           ` netlink: GPF in sock_sndtimeo Dmitry Vyukov
2016-12-09 11:48             ` Richard Guy Briggs
2016-12-09 11:53               ` Dmitry Vyukov
2016-12-09 12:12                 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2016-11-26 15:44 Dmitry Vyukov
2016-11-26 16:17 ` Eric Dumazet
2016-11-27  1:11 ` Cong Wang

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=20161212100215.GA1305@madcap2.tricolour.ca \
    --to=rgb@redhat.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=dvyukov@google.com \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=fw@strlen.de \
    --cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
    --cc=johannes.berg@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-audit@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pmoore@redhat.com \
    --cc=syzkaller@googlegroups.com \
    --cc=xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com \
    /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).