| Message ID | 6001185ace17e7d7d2ed176c20aef2461b60c613.1742323321.git.pabeni@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Delegated to: | Netdev Maintainers |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [net-next] udp_tunnel: properly deal with xfrm gro encap. | expand |
Paolo Abeni wrote: > The blamed commit below does not take in account that xfrm > can enable GRO over UDP encapsulation without going through > setup_udp_tunnel_sock(). > > At deletion time such socket will still go through > udp_tunnel_cleanup_gro(), and the failed GRO type lookup will > trigger the reported warning. > > We can safely remove such warning, simply performing no action > on failed GRO type lookup at deletion time. > > Reported-by: syzbot+8c469a2260132cd095c1@syzkaller.appspotmail.com > Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=8c469a2260132cd095c1 > Fixes: 311b36574ceac ("udp_tunnel: use static call for GRO hooks when possible") > Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> Because XFRM does not call udp_tunnel_update_gro_rcv when enabling its UDP GRO offload, from set_xfrm_gro_udp_encap_rcv. But it does call it when disabling the offload, as called for all udp sockest from udp(v6)_destroy_sock. (Just to verify my understanding.) Not calling udp_tunnel_update_gro_rcv on add will have the unintended side effect of enabling the static call if one other tunnel is also active, breaking UDP GRO for XFRM socket, right? Not a significant consequence. But eventually XFRM would want to be counted, I suppose. Reviewed-by: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com> > --- > net/ipv4/udp_offload.c | 9 +-------- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/net/ipv4/udp_offload.c b/net/ipv4/udp_offload.c > index 088aa8cb8ac0c..2e0b52ae665bc 100644 > --- a/net/ipv4/udp_offload.c > +++ b/net/ipv4/udp_offload.c > @@ -110,14 +110,7 @@ void udp_tunnel_update_gro_rcv(struct sock *sk, bool add) > cur = &udp_tunnel_gro_types[udp_tunnel_gro_type_nr++]; > refcount_set(&cur->count, 1); > cur->gro_receive = up->gro_receive; > - } else { > - /* > - * The stack cleanups only successfully added tunnel, the > - * lookup on removal should never fail. > - */ > - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!cur)) > - goto out; > - > + } else if (cur) { > if (!refcount_dec_and_test(&cur->count)) > goto out; > > -- > 2.48.1 >
On 3/19/25 3:35 PM, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > Paolo Abeni wrote: >> The blamed commit below does not take in account that xfrm >> can enable GRO over UDP encapsulation without going through >> setup_udp_tunnel_sock(). >> >> At deletion time such socket will still go through >> udp_tunnel_cleanup_gro(), and the failed GRO type lookup will >> trigger the reported warning. >> >> We can safely remove such warning, simply performing no action >> on failed GRO type lookup at deletion time. >> >> Reported-by: syzbot+8c469a2260132cd095c1@syzkaller.appspotmail.com >> Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=8c469a2260132cd095c1 >> Fixes: 311b36574ceac ("udp_tunnel: use static call for GRO hooks when possible") >> Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> > > Because XFRM does not call udp_tunnel_update_gro_rcv when enabling its > UDP GRO offload, from set_xfrm_gro_udp_encap_rcv. But it does call it > when disabling the offload, as called for all udp sockest from > udp(v6)_destroy_sock. (Just to verify my understanding.) Exactly. > Not calling udp_tunnel_update_gro_rcv on add will have the unintended > side effect of enabling the static call if one other tunnel is also > active, breaking UDP GRO for XFRM socket, right? Ouch, right again. I think we can/should do better. Given syzkaller has found another splat with no reproducer on the other UDP GRO change of mine [1] and we are almost at merge window time, I'm considering reverting entirely such changes and re-submit later (hopefully fixed). WDYT? Thanks, Paolo [1] https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=1fb3291cc1beeb3c315a I *think* moving: if (!up->tunnel_list.pprev) from udp_tunnel_cleanup_gro() into udp_tunnel_update_gro_lookup(), under the udp_tunnel_gro_lock spinlock should fix it, but without a repro it's a bit risky,
Paolo Abeni wrote: > > > On 3/19/25 3:35 PM, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > > Paolo Abeni wrote: > >> The blamed commit below does not take in account that xfrm > >> can enable GRO over UDP encapsulation without going through > >> setup_udp_tunnel_sock(). > >> > >> At deletion time such socket will still go through > >> udp_tunnel_cleanup_gro(), and the failed GRO type lookup will > >> trigger the reported warning. > >> > >> We can safely remove such warning, simply performing no action > >> on failed GRO type lookup at deletion time. > >> > >> Reported-by: syzbot+8c469a2260132cd095c1@syzkaller.appspotmail.com > >> Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=8c469a2260132cd095c1 > >> Fixes: 311b36574ceac ("udp_tunnel: use static call for GRO hooks when possible") > >> Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> > > > > Because XFRM does not call udp_tunnel_update_gro_rcv when enabling its > > UDP GRO offload, from set_xfrm_gro_udp_encap_rcv. But it does call it > > when disabling the offload, as called for all udp sockest from > > udp(v6)_destroy_sock. (Just to verify my understanding.) > > Exactly. > > > Not calling udp_tunnel_update_gro_rcv on add will have the unintended > > side effect of enabling the static call if one other tunnel is also > > active, breaking UDP GRO for XFRM socket, right? > > Ouch, right again. I think we can/should do better. > > Given syzkaller has found another splat with no reproducer on the other > UDP GRO change of mine [1] and we are almost at merge window time, I'm > considering reverting entirely such changes and re-submit later > (hopefully fixed). WDYT? Your call. I suspect that we can forward fix this. But yes, that is always the riskier approach. And from a first quick look at the report, the right fix is not immediately glaringly obvious indeed. > Thanks, > > Paolo > > [1] https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=1fb3291cc1beeb3c315a > I *think* moving: > > if (!up->tunnel_list.pprev) > > from udp_tunnel_cleanup_gro() into udp_tunnel_update_gro_lookup(), under > the udp_tunnel_gro_lock spinlock should fix it, but without a repro it's > a bit risky, >
On 3/19/25 6:44 PM, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > Paolo Abeni wrote: >> Given syzkaller has found another splat with no reproducer on the other >> UDP GRO change of mine [1] and we are almost at merge window time, I'm >> considering reverting entirely such changes and re-submit later >> (hopefully fixed). WDYT? > > Your call. I suspect that we can forward fix this. But yes, that is > always the riskier approach. And from a first quick look at the > report, the right fix is not immediately glaringly obvious indeed. One problem to me is that I have my hands significantly full, since the revert looks like the faster way out it looks the more appealing candidate to me. WRT the other issue, I think the problem is in udp_tunnel_cleanup_gro(); this check: if (!up->tunnel_list.pprev) return; at sk deletion time is performed outside any lock. The current CPU could see the old list value (empty) even if another core previously added the sk into the UDP tunnel GRO list, thus skipping the removal from such list. Later list operation will do UaF while touching the same list. Moving the check under the udp_tunnel_gro_lock spinlock should solve the issue. Thanks, Paolo
diff --git a/net/ipv4/udp_offload.c b/net/ipv4/udp_offload.c index 088aa8cb8ac0c..2e0b52ae665bc 100644 --- a/net/ipv4/udp_offload.c +++ b/net/ipv4/udp_offload.c @@ -110,14 +110,7 @@ void udp_tunnel_update_gro_rcv(struct sock *sk, bool add) cur = &udp_tunnel_gro_types[udp_tunnel_gro_type_nr++]; refcount_set(&cur->count, 1); cur->gro_receive = up->gro_receive; - } else { - /* - * The stack cleanups only successfully added tunnel, the - * lookup on removal should never fail. - */ - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!cur)) - goto out; - + } else if (cur) { if (!refcount_dec_and_test(&cur->count)) goto out;
The blamed commit below does not take in account that xfrm can enable GRO over UDP encapsulation without going through setup_udp_tunnel_sock(). At deletion time such socket will still go through udp_tunnel_cleanup_gro(), and the failed GRO type lookup will trigger the reported warning. We can safely remove such warning, simply performing no action on failed GRO type lookup at deletion time. Reported-by: syzbot+8c469a2260132cd095c1@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=8c469a2260132cd095c1 Fixes: 311b36574ceac ("udp_tunnel: use static call for GRO hooks when possible") Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> --- net/ipv4/udp_offload.c | 9 +-------- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 8 deletions(-)