Hi,
Thanks for taking the time to review. Please find my comments inline -
On 5/7/20 1:16 PM, Wan, Kaike wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mark Bloch <markb@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2020 3:36 PM
>> To: Divya Indi <divya.indi@xxxxxxxxxx>; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
>> rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx>; Wan, Kaike
>> <kaike.wan@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Gerd Rausch <gerd.rausch@xxxxxxxxxx>; Håkon Bugge
>> <haakon.bugge@xxxxxxxxxx>; Srinivas Eeda <srinivas.eeda@xxxxxxxxxx>;
>> Rama Nichanamatlu <rama.nichanamatlu@xxxxxxxxxx>; Doug Ledford
>> <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] IB/sa: Resolving use-after-free in ib_nl_send_msg.
>>
>>
>>> @@ -1123,6 +1156,18 @@ int ib_nl_handle_resolve_resp(struct sk_buff
>>> *skb,
>>>
>>> send_buf = query->mad_buf;
>>>
>>> + /*
>>> + * Make sure the IB_SA_NL_QUERY_SENT flag is set before
>>> + * processing this query. If flag is not set, query can be accessed in
>>> + * another context while setting the flag and processing the query
>> will
>>> + * eventually release it causing a possible use-after-free.
>>> + */
>>> + if (unlikely(!ib_sa_nl_query_sent(query))) {
>> Can't there be a race here where you check the flag (it isn't set) and before
>> you call wait_event() the flag is set and wake_up() is called which means you
>> will wait here forever?
> Should wait_event() catch that? That is, if the flag is not set, wait_event() will sleep until the flag is set.
>
> or worse, a timeout will happen the query will be
>> freed and them some other query will call wake_up() and we have again a
>> use-after-free.
> The request has been deleted from the request list by this time and therefore the timeout should have no impact here.
>
>
>>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ib_nl_request_lock, flags);
>>> + wait_event(wait_queue, ib_sa_nl_query_sent(query));
>> What if there are two queries sent to userspace, shouldn't you check and
>> make sure you got woken up by the right one setting the flag?
> The wait_event() is conditioned on the specific query (ib_sa_nl_query_sent(query)), not on the wait_queue itself.
>
>> Other than that, the entire solution makes it very complicated to reason with
>> (flags set/checked without locking etc) maybe we should just revert and fix it
>> the other way?
> The flag could certainly be set under the lock, which may reduce complications.
We could use a lock or use atomic operations. However, the reason for not doing so was that
we have 1 writer and multiple readers of the IB_SA_NL_QUERY_SENT flag and the readers
wouldnt mind reading a stale value.
Would it still be better to have a lock for this flag?
Thanks,
Divya
>
> Kaike
>
