Re: [PATCH net] net: bpf: fix request_sock leak in filter.c

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 6/9/22 3:18 AM, Jon Maxwell wrote:
A customer reported a request_socket leak in a Calico cloud environment. We
found that a BPF program was doing a socket lookup with takes a refcnt on
the socket and that it was finding the request_socket but returning the parent
LISTEN socket via sk_to_full_sk() without decrementing the child request socket
1st, resulting in request_sock slab object leak. This patch retains the
existing behaviour of returning full socks to the caller but it also decrements
the child request_socket if one is present before doing so to prevent the leak.

Thanks to Curtis Taylor for all the help in diagnosing and testing this. And
thanks to Antoine Tenart for the reproducer and patch input.

Fixes: f7355a6c0497 bpf: ("Check sk_fullsock() before returning from bpf_sk_lookup()")
Fixes: edbf8c01de5a bpf: ("add skc_lookup_tcp helper")
Tested-by: Curtis Taylor <cutaylor-pub@xxxxxxxxx>
Co-developed-by: Antoine Tenart <atenart@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by:: Antoine Tenart <atenart@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Jon Maxwell <jmaxwell37@xxxxxxxxx>
---
  net/core/filter.c | 20 ++++++++++++++------
  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c
index 2e32cee2c469..e3c04ae7381f 100644
--- a/net/core/filter.c
+++ b/net/core/filter.c
@@ -6202,13 +6202,17 @@ __bpf_sk_lookup(struct sk_buff *skb, struct bpf_sock_tuple *tuple, u32 len,
  {
  	struct sock *sk = __bpf_skc_lookup(skb, tuple, len, caller_net,
  					   ifindex, proto, netns_id, flags);
+	struct sock *sk1 = sk;
if (sk) {
  		sk = sk_to_full_sk(sk);
-		if (!sk_fullsock(sk)) {
-			sock_gen_put(sk);
+		/* sk_to_full_sk() may return (sk)->rsk_listener, so make sure the original sk1
+		 * sock refcnt is decremented to prevent a request_sock leak.
+		 */
+		if (!sk_fullsock(sk1))
+			sock_gen_put(sk1);
+		if (!sk_fullsock(sk))
  			return NULL;

[ +Martin/Joe/Lorenz ]

I wonder, should we also add some asserts in here to ensure we don't get an unbalance for the
bpf_sk_release() case later on? Rough pseudocode could be something like below:

static struct sock *
__bpf_sk_lookup(struct sk_buff *skb, struct bpf_sock_tuple *tuple, u32 len,
                struct net *caller_net, u32 ifindex, u8 proto, u64 netns_id,
                u64 flags)
{
        struct sock *sk = __bpf_skc_lookup(skb, tuple, len, caller_net,
                                           ifindex, proto, netns_id, flags);
        if (sk) {
                struct sock *sk2 = sk_to_full_sk(sk);

                if (!sk_fullsock(sk2))
                        sk2 = NULL;
                if (sk2 != sk) {
                        sock_gen_put(sk);
                        if (unlikely(sk2 && !sock_flag(sk2, SOCK_RCU_FREE))) {
                                WARN_ONCE(1, "Found non-RCU, unreferenced socket!");
                                sk2 = NULL;
                        }
                }
                sk = sk2;
        }
        return sk;
}

Thanks,
Daniel



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux