lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jul]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Subject[PATCH 4.17 079/101] bpf: sockmap, fix crash when ipv6 sock is added
Date
4.17-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>

commit 9901c5d77e969d8215a8e8d087ef02e6feddc84c upstream.

This fixes a crash where we assign tcp_prot to IPv6 sockets instead
of tcpv6_prot.

Previously we overwrote the sk->prot field with tcp_prot even in the
AF_INET6 case. This patch ensures the correct tcp_prot and tcpv6_prot
are used.

Tested with 'netserver -6' and 'netperf -H [IPv6]' as well as
'netperf -H [IPv4]'. The ESTABLISHED check resolves the previously
crashing case here.

Fixes: 174a79ff9515 ("bpf: sockmap with sk redirect support")
Reported-by: syzbot+5c063698bdbfac19f363@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Wei Wang <weiwan@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

---
kernel/bpf/sockmap.c | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
1 file changed, 48 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

--- a/kernel/bpf/sockmap.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/sockmap.c
@@ -112,6 +112,7 @@ static int bpf_tcp_recvmsg(struct sock *
static int bpf_tcp_sendmsg(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr *msg, size_t size);
static int bpf_tcp_sendpage(struct sock *sk, struct page *page,
int offset, size_t size, int flags);
+static void bpf_tcp_close(struct sock *sk, long timeout);

static inline struct smap_psock *smap_psock_sk(const struct sock *sk)
{
@@ -133,7 +134,42 @@ out:
return !empty;
}

-static struct proto tcp_bpf_proto;
+enum {
+ SOCKMAP_IPV4,
+ SOCKMAP_IPV6,
+ SOCKMAP_NUM_PROTS,
+};
+
+enum {
+ SOCKMAP_BASE,
+ SOCKMAP_TX,
+ SOCKMAP_NUM_CONFIGS,
+};
+
+static struct proto *saved_tcpv6_prot __read_mostly;
+static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(tcpv6_prot_lock);
+static struct proto bpf_tcp_prots[SOCKMAP_NUM_PROTS][SOCKMAP_NUM_CONFIGS];
+static void build_protos(struct proto prot[SOCKMAP_NUM_CONFIGS],
+ struct proto *base)
+{
+ prot[SOCKMAP_BASE] = *base;
+ prot[SOCKMAP_BASE].close = bpf_tcp_close;
+ prot[SOCKMAP_BASE].recvmsg = bpf_tcp_recvmsg;
+ prot[SOCKMAP_BASE].stream_memory_read = bpf_tcp_stream_read;
+
+ prot[SOCKMAP_TX] = prot[SOCKMAP_BASE];
+ prot[SOCKMAP_TX].sendmsg = bpf_tcp_sendmsg;
+ prot[SOCKMAP_TX].sendpage = bpf_tcp_sendpage;
+}
+
+static void update_sk_prot(struct sock *sk, struct smap_psock *psock)
+{
+ int family = sk->sk_family == AF_INET6 ? SOCKMAP_IPV6 : SOCKMAP_IPV4;
+ int conf = psock->bpf_tx_msg ? SOCKMAP_TX : SOCKMAP_BASE;
+
+ sk->sk_prot = &bpf_tcp_prots[family][conf];
+}
+
static int bpf_tcp_init(struct sock *sk)
{
struct smap_psock *psock;
@@ -153,14 +189,17 @@ static int bpf_tcp_init(struct sock *sk)
psock->save_close = sk->sk_prot->close;
psock->sk_proto = sk->sk_prot;

- if (psock->bpf_tx_msg) {
- tcp_bpf_proto.sendmsg = bpf_tcp_sendmsg;
- tcp_bpf_proto.sendpage = bpf_tcp_sendpage;
- tcp_bpf_proto.recvmsg = bpf_tcp_recvmsg;
- tcp_bpf_proto.stream_memory_read = bpf_tcp_stream_read;
+ /* Build IPv6 sockmap whenever the address of tcpv6_prot changes */
+ if (sk->sk_family == AF_INET6 &&
+ unlikely(sk->sk_prot != smp_load_acquire(&saved_tcpv6_prot))) {
+ spin_lock_bh(&tcpv6_prot_lock);
+ if (likely(sk->sk_prot != saved_tcpv6_prot)) {
+ build_protos(bpf_tcp_prots[SOCKMAP_IPV6], sk->sk_prot);
+ smp_store_release(&saved_tcpv6_prot, sk->sk_prot);
+ }
+ spin_unlock_bh(&tcpv6_prot_lock);
}
-
- sk->sk_prot = &tcp_bpf_proto;
+ update_sk_prot(sk, psock);
rcu_read_unlock();
return 0;
}
@@ -1070,8 +1109,7 @@ static void bpf_tcp_msg_add(struct smap_

static int bpf_tcp_ulp_register(void)
{
- tcp_bpf_proto = tcp_prot;
- tcp_bpf_proto.close = bpf_tcp_close;
+ build_protos(bpf_tcp_prots[SOCKMAP_IPV4], &tcp_prot);
/* Once BPF TX ULP is registered it is never unregistered. It
* will be in the ULP list for the lifetime of the system. Doing
* duplicate registers is not a problem.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-07-20 14:49    [W:0.365 / U:3.016 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site