On 4/21/23 6:17 PM, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:
> 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@xxxxxx>
>> ---
>> [...]
>> +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).
Thanks for the detailed feedback here and in the other thread in the series.
I will address the issues you raised ASAP, starting with this one, which I've
confirmed via a repro selftest. Will be sending fixes soon.
