Re: net: use-after-free in tw_timer_handler

[Dmitry Vyukov]

On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-02-08 at 19:55 +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 6:58 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2017-02-08 at 18:36 +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:06 AM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> This code was changed a long time ago :
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=ed2e923945892a8372ab70d2f61d364b0b6d9054
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> So I suspect a recent patch broke the logic.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> You might start a bisection :
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I would check if 4.7 and 4.8 trigger the issue you noticed.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It happens with too low rate for bisecting (few times per day). I
>> >> >> could add some additional checks into code, but I don't know what
>> >> >> checks could be useful.
>> >> >
>> >> > If you can not tell if 4.7 and/or 4.8 have the problem, I am not sure
>> >> > we are able to help.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> There are also chances that the problem is older.
>> >>
>> >> Looking at the code, this part of inet_twsk_purge looks fishy:
>> >>
>> >> 285                         if (unlikely((tw->tw_family != family) ||
>> >> 286                                      atomic_read(&twsk_net(tw)->count))) {
>> >>
>> >> It uses net->count == 0 check to find the right sockets. But what if
>> >> there are several nets with count == 0 in flight, can't there be
>> >> several inet_twsk_purge calls running concurrently freeing each other
>> >> sockets? If so it looks like inet_twsk_purge can call
>> >> inet_twsk_deschedule_put twice for a socket. Namely, two calls for
>> >> different nets discover the socket, check that net->count==0 and both
>> >> call inet_twsk_deschedule_put. Shouldn't we just give inet_twsk_purge
>> >> net that it needs to purge?
>> >
>> > Yes, atomic_read() is not a proper sync point.
>>
>> Do you mean that it does not include read barrier?
>> I more mean that we can call inet_twsk_deschedule_put twice for the same socket.
>
> I meant that this code assumed RTNL being held.
>
> This might not be the case now, after some old change.


cleanup_net releases rtnl lock right before calling these callbacks.