Re: [PATCH net] net/smc: Avoid setting clcsock options after clcsock released

[Karsten Graul]

On 10/01/2022 10:38, Wen Gu wrote:
> We encountered a crash in smc_setsockopt() and it is caused by
> accessing smc->clcsock after clcsock was released.
> 
>  BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 0000000000000020
>  #PF: supervisor read access in kernel mode
>  #PF: error_code(0x0000) - not-present page
>  PGD 0 P4D 0
>  Oops: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP PTI
>  CPU: 1 PID: 50309 Comm: nginx Kdump: loaded Tainted: G E     5.16.0-rc4+ #53
>  RIP: 0010:smc_setsockopt+0x59/0x280 [smc]
>  Call Trace:
>   <TASK>
>   __sys_setsockopt+0xfc/0x190
>   __x64_sys_setsockopt+0x20/0x30
>   do_syscall_64+0x34/0x90
>   entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
>  RIP: 0033:0x7f16ba83918e
>   </TASK>
> 
> This patch tries to fix it by holding clcsock_release_lock and
> checking whether clcsock has already been released. In case that
> a crash of the same reason happens in smc_getsockopt(), this patch
> also checkes smc->clcsock in smc_getsockopt().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Wen Gu <guwen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  net/smc/af_smc.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/smc/af_smc.c b/net/smc/af_smc.c
> index 1c9289f..af423f4 100644
> --- a/net/smc/af_smc.c
> +++ b/net/smc/af_smc.c
> @@ -2441,6 +2441,11 @@ static int smc_setsockopt(struct socket *sock, int level, int optname,
>  	/* generic setsockopts reaching us here always apply to the
>  	 * CLC socket
>  	 */
> +	mutex_lock(&smc->clcsock_release_lock);
> +	if (!smc->clcsock) {
> +		mutex_unlock(&smc->clcsock_release_lock);
> +		return -EBADF;
> +	}
>  	if (unlikely(!smc->clcsock->ops->setsockopt))
>  		rc = -EOPNOTSUPP;
>  	else
> @@ -2450,6 +2455,7 @@ static int smc_setsockopt(struct socket *sock, int level, int optname,
>  		sk->sk_err = smc->clcsock->sk->sk_err;
>  		sk_error_report(sk);
>  	}
> +	mutex_unlock(&smc->clcsock_release_lock);

In the switch() the function smc_switch_to_fallback() might be called which also
accesses smc->clcsock without further checking. This should also be protected then?
Also from all callers of smc_switch_to_fallback() ?

There are more uses of smc->clcsock (e.g. smc_bind(), ...), so why does this problem 
happen in setsockopt() for you only? I suspect it depends on the test case.

I wonder if it makes sense to check and protect smc->clcsock at all places in the code where 
it is used... as of now we had no such races like you encountered. But I see that in theory 
this problem could also happen in other code areas.

>  
>  	if (optlen < sizeof(int))
>  		return -EINVAL;
> @@ -2509,13 +2515,21 @@ static int smc_getsockopt(struct socket *sock, int level, int optname,
>  			  char __user *optval, int __user *optlen)
>  {
>  	struct smc_sock *smc;
> +	int rc;
>  
>  	smc = smc_sk(sock->sk);
> +	mutex_lock(&smc->clcsock_release_lock);
> +	if (!smc->clcsock) {
> +		mutex_unlock(&smc->clcsock_release_lock);
> +		return -EBADF;
> +	}
>  	/* socket options apply to the CLC socket */
>  	if (unlikely(!smc->clcsock->ops->getsockopt))
>  		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> -	return smc->clcsock->ops->getsockopt(smc->clcsock, level, optname,
> +	rc = smc->clcsock->ops->getsockopt(smc->clcsock, level, optname,
>  					     optval, optlen);
> +	mutex_unlock(&smc->clcsock_release_lock);
> +	return rc;
>  }
>  
>  static int smc_ioctl(struct socket *sock, unsigned int cmd,

-- 
Karsten