> -----Original Message-----
> From: Divya Indi <divya.indi@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 5:06 PM
> To: Wan, Kaike <kaike.wan@xxxxxxxxx>; Mark Bloch
> <markb@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx>
> 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.
>
> 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?
>
Yes. It will make the code less complicated and easier to maintain.
Kaike
