On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 07:52:48AM -0500, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 07:09:16PM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
> > In sctp_hash_transport, it dereferences a transport's asoc only under
> > rcu_read_lock. Without holding the transport, its asoc could be freed
> > already, which leads to a use-after-free panic.
> >
> > A similar fix as Commit bab1be79a516 ("sctp: hold transport before
> > accessing its asoc in sctp_transport_get_next") is needed to hold
> > the transport before accessing its asoc in sctp_hash_transport.
> >
> > Fixes: cd2b70875058 ("sctp: check duplicate node before inserting a new transport")
> > Reported-by: syzbot+0b05d8aa7cb185107483@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Signed-off-by: Xin Long <lucien.xin@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > net/sctp/input.c | 7 ++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/sctp/input.c b/net/sctp/input.c
> > index 5c36a99..69584e9 100644
> > --- a/net/sctp/input.c
> > +++ b/net/sctp/input.c
> > @@ -896,11 +896,16 @@ int sctp_hash_transport(struct sctp_transport *t)
> > list = rhltable_lookup(&sctp_transport_hashtable, &arg,
> > sctp_hash_params);
> >
> > - rhl_for_each_entry_rcu(transport, tmp, list, node)
> > + rhl_for_each_entry_rcu(transport, tmp, list, node) {
> > + if (!sctp_transport_hold(transport))
> > + continue;
> > if (transport->asoc->ep == t->asoc->ep) {
> > + sctp_transport_put(transport);
> > rcu_read_unlock();
> > return -EEXIST;
> > }
> > + sctp_transport_put(transport);
> > + }
> > rcu_read_unlock();
> >
> > err = rhltable_insert_key(&sctp_transport_hashtable, &arg,
> > --
> > 2.1.0
> >
> >
>
> something doesn't feel at all right about this. If we are inserting a transport
> to an association, it would seem to me that we should have at least one user of
> the association (i.e. non-zero refcount). As such it seems something is wrong
> with the association refcount here. At the very least, if there is a case where
> an association is being removed while a transport is being added, the better
> solution would be to ensure that sctp_association_destroy goes through a
> quiescent point prior to unhashing transports from the list, to ensure that
> there is no conflict with the add operation above.
Consider that the rhl_for_each_entry_rcu() is traversing the global
rhashtable, and that it may operate on unrelated transports/asocs.
E.g., transport->asoc in the for() is potentially different from the
asoc under socket lock.
The core of the fix is at:
+ if (!sctp_transport_hold(transport))
+ continue;
If we can get a hold, the asoc will be available for dereferencing in
subsequent lines. Otherwise, move on.
With that, the patch makes sense to me.
Although I would prefer if we come up with a better way to do this
jump, or even avoid the jump. We are only comparing pointers here and
if we had asoc->ep cached on sctp_transport itself, we could avoid the
atomics here.
This change, in the next patch on sctp_epaddr_lookup_transport, will
hurt performance as that is called in datapath. Rhashtable will help
on keeping entry lists to a size, but still.
Marcelo
