On 26.11.24 13:12, Wenjia Zhang wrote:
On 25.11.24 07:46, Wen Gu wrote:ok, I think you're right, I was distracted by the the sock_put() in function __smc_lgr_terminate()On 2024/11/22 23:56, Wenjia Zhang wrote:Because according to the panic stack, the UAF is found in smcr_link_put(),On 22.11.24 08:16, Wen Gu wrote:We encountered a LGR/link use-after-free issue, which manifested as the LGR/link refcnt reaching 0 early and entering the clear process, making resource access unsafe.How did you make sure that the refcount mentioned in the warning are the LGR/link refcnt, not &sk->sk_refcnt?and it is also found that the link has been cleared at that time (lnk has been memset to all zero by __smcr_link_clear()).refcount_t: addition on 0; use-after-free.WARNING: CPU: 14 PID: 107447 at lib/refcount.c:25 refcount_warn_saturate+0x9c/0x140Workqueue: events smc_lgr_terminate_work [smc] Call trace: refcount_warn_saturate+0x9c/0x140 __smc_lgr_terminate.part.45+0x2a8/0x370 [smc] smc_lgr_terminate_work+0x28/0x30 [smc] process_one_work+0x1b8/0x420 worker_thread+0x158/0x510 kthread+0x114/0x118 or refcount_t: underflow; use-after-free.WARNING: CPU: 6 PID: 93140 at lib/refcount.c:28 refcount_warn_saturate+0xf0/0x140Workqueue: smc_hs_wq smc_listen_work [smc] Call trace: refcount_warn_saturate+0xf0/0x140 smcr_link_put+0x1cc/0x1d8 [smc] smc_conn_free+0x110/0x1b0 [smc] smc_conn_abort+0x50/0x60 [smc] smc_listen_find_device+0x75c/0x790 [smc] smc_listen_work+0x368/0x8a0 [smc] process_one_work+0x1b8/0x420 worker_thread+0x158/0x510 kthread+0x114/0x118It is caused by repeated release of LGR/link refcnt. One suspect is that smc_conn_free() is called repeatedly because some smc_conn_free() are notprotected by sock lock. Calls under socklock | Calls not under socklock ------------------------------------------------------- lock_sock(sk) | smc_conn_abort smc_conn_free | \- smc_conn_free \- smcr_link_put | \- smcr_link_put (duplicated) release_sock(sk) So make sure smc_conn_free() is called under the sock lock.If I understand correctly, the fix could only solve a part of the problem, i.e. what the second call trace reported, right?I think that these panic stacks (there are some other variations that I haven't posted) have the same root cause, that is the link/lgr refcnt reaches 0 early in the race situation,making access to link/lgr related resources no longer safe.The link/lgr refcnt was introduced by [1] & [2], the link refcnt is operated by link itself and connections registered to it, and the lgr refcnt is operated by lgr itself, links belong to it and connections registered to it. Through code analysis, the most likely suspect is that smc_conn_free() duplicate put link/lgr refcnt because some smc_conn_free() calls by smc_conn_abort() are not under the protection of sock lock,so if they are called at the same time, there may be a race condition. for example: __smc_lgr_terminate | smc_listen_decline -------------------------------------------------------------- lock_sock | smc_conn_kill | smc_conn_abort \- smc_conn_free | \- smc_conn_free release_sock |[1] 61f434b0280e ("net/smc: Resolve the race between link group access and termination") [2] 20c9398d3309 ("net/smc: Resolve the race between SMC-R link access and clear")I see, thx!Do you mean here that the smc_conn_abort()->smc_conn_free() calls are protected in smc_listen_{rdma|ism}, right?Fixes: 8cf3f3e42374 ("net/smc: use helper smc_conn_abort() in listen processing")Co-developed-by: Guangguan Wang <guangguan.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Guangguan Wang <guangguan.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Co-developed-by: Kai <KaiShen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Kai <KaiShen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Wen Gu <guwen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- net/smc/af_smc.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/net/smc/af_smc.c b/net/smc/af_smc.c index ed6d4d520bc7..e0a7a0151b11 100644 --- a/net/smc/af_smc.c +++ b/net/smc/af_smc.c@@ -973,7 +973,8 @@ static int smc_connect_decline_fallback(struct smc_sock *smc, int reason_code,return smc_connect_fallback(smc, reason_code); } -static void smc_conn_abort(struct smc_sock *smc, int local_first) +static void __smc_conn_abort(struct smc_sock *smc, int local_first, + bool locked) { struct smc_connection *conn = &smc->conn; struct smc_link_group *lgr = conn->lgr;@@ -982,11 +983,27 @@ static void smc_conn_abort(struct smc_sock *smc, int local_first)if (smc_conn_lgr_valid(conn)) lgr_valid = true; - smc_conn_free(conn); + if (!locked) { + lock_sock(&smc->sk); + smc_conn_free(conn); + release_sock(&smc->sk); + } else { + smc_conn_free(conn); + } if (local_first && lgr_valid) smc_lgr_cleanup_early(lgr); } +static void smc_conn_abort(struct smc_sock *smc, int local_first) +{ + __smc_conn_abort(smc, local_first, false); +} ++static void smc_conn_abort_locked(struct smc_sock *smc, int local_first)+{ + __smc_conn_abort(smc, local_first, true); +} + /* check if there is a rdma device available for this connection. */ /* called for connect and listen */static int smc_find_rdma_device(struct smc_sock *smc, struct smc_init_info *ini)@@ -1352,7 +1369,7 @@ static int smc_connect_rdma(struct smc_sock *smc, return 0; connect_abort: - smc_conn_abort(smc, ini->first_contact_local); + smc_conn_abort_locked(smc, ini->first_contact_local); mutex_unlock(&smc_client_lgr_pending); smc->connect_nonblock = 0; @@ -1454,7 +1471,7 @@ static int smc_connect_ism(struct smc_sock *smc, return 0; connect_abort: - smc_conn_abort(smc, ini->first_contact_local); + smc_conn_abort_locked(smc, ini->first_contact_local); mutex_unlock(&smc_server_lgr_pending); smc->connect_nonblock = 0;Why is smc_conn_abort_locked() only necessary for the smc_connect_work, not for the smc_listen_work?Before this patch, the smc_conn_abort()->smc_conn_free() calls are not protected by sock lock except in smc_conn_{rdma|ism}. So I add sock lockIf it is, could you please point me out where they(the protection) are?
sorry, I see it, pls forget this question
protection inside the __smc_conn_abort() and introduce smc_conn_abort_locked()(which means sock lock has been taken) for smc_conn_{rdma|ism}.Thanks, Wenjia
