On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 10:46:26PM -0200, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> 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.
>
Ah, ok, we're comparing associations that are not related to the association
being searched for, that makes sense.
> 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.
>
Yes, I agree, but as you note below, this still seems like a lousy way to fix
the problem.
> 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.
>
I still think the rcu_read_lock would be sufficient here, if we just ensured
that removals from the list occured after a quiescent point. The lookup is in
the datapath, but adds/removes can have a little more latency added to them, and
if it removes the atomic operation from the fast path, I think thats a net win.
Neil
> Marcelo
>
