Re: general protection fault in tls_write_space

[John Fastabend]

Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 11:30:00 -0700, John Fastabend wrote:
> > Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 10:17:06 -0700, John Fastabend wrote:  
> > > > > Followup of commit 95fa145479fb
> > > > > ("bpf: sockmap/tls, close can race with map free")
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- a/net/tls/tls_main.c
> > > > > +++ b/net/tls/tls_main.c
> > > > > @@ -308,6 +308,9 @@ static void tls_sk_proto_close(struct so
> > > > >  	if (free_ctx)
> > > > >  		icsk->icsk_ulp_data = NULL;
> > > > >  	sk->sk_prot = ctx->sk_proto;
> > > > > +	/* tls will go; restore sock callback before enabling bh */
> > > > > +	if (sk->sk_write_space == tls_write_space)
> > > > > +		sk->sk_write_space = ctx->sk_write_space;
> > > > >  	write_unlock_bh(&sk->sk_callback_lock);
> > > > >  	release_sock(sk);
> > > > >  	if (ctx->tx_conf == TLS_SW)    
> > > > 
> > > > Hi Hillf,
> > > > 
> > > > We need this patch (although slightly updated for bpf tree) do
> > > > you want to send it? Otherwise I can. We should only set this if
> > > > TX path was enabled otherwise we null it. Checking against
> > > > tls_write_space seems best to me as well.
> > > > 
> > > > Against bpf this patch should fix it.
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/net/tls/tls_main.c b/net/tls/tls_main.c
> > > > index ce6ef56a65ef..43252a801c3f 100644
> > > > --- a/net/tls/tls_main.c
> > > > +++ b/net/tls/tls_main.c
> > > > @@ -308,7 +308,8 @@ static void tls_sk_proto_close(struct sock *sk, long timeout)
> > > >         if (free_ctx)
> > > >                 icsk->icsk_ulp_data = NULL;
> > > >         sk->sk_prot = ctx->sk_proto;
> > > > -       sk->sk_write_space = ctx->sk_write_space;
> > > > +       if (sk->sk_write_space == tls_write_space)
> > > > +               sk->sk_write_space = ctx->sk_write_space;
> > > >         write_unlock_bh(&sk->sk_callback_lock);
> > > >         release_sock(sk);
> > > >         if (ctx->tx_conf == TLS_SW)  
> > > 
> > > This is already in net since Friday:  
> > 
> > Don't we need to guard that with an
> > 
> >   if (sk->sk_write_space == tls_write_space)
> > 
> > or something similar? Where is ctx->sk_write_space set in the rx only
> > case? In do_tls_setsockop_conf() we have this block
> > 
> > 	if (tx) {
> > 		ctx->sk_write_space = sk->sk_write_space;
> > 		sk->sk_write_space = tls_write_space;
> > 	} else {
> > 		sk->sk_socket->ops = &tls_sw_proto_ops;
> > 	}
> > 
> > which makes me think ctx->sk_write_space may not be set correctly in
> > all cases.
> 
> Ah damn, you're right I remember looking at that but then I went down
> the rabbit hole of trying to repro and forgot :/
> 
> Do you want to send an incremental change?

Sure I'll send something out this afternoon.