mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Lena Wang (王娜)" <Lena.Wang@mediatek.com>
To: "maze@google.com" <maze@google.com>,
	"willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com"
	<willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"bpf@vger.kernel.org" <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
	"steffen.klassert@secunet.com" <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>,
	"kuba@kernel.org" <kuba@kernel.org>,
	"Shiming Cheng (成诗明)" <Shiming.Cheng@mediatek.com>,
	"pabeni@redhat.com" <pabeni@redhat.com>,
	"edumazet@google.com" <edumazet@google.com>,
	"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	"matthias.bgg@gmail.com" <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
	"davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] udp: fix segmentation crash for GRO packet without fraglist
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2024 02:52:52 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <11395231f8be21718f89981ffe3703da3f829742.camel@mediatek.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <662027965bdb1_c8647294b3@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch>

On Wed, 2024-04-17 at 15:48 -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
>  	 
> External email : Please do not click links or open attachments until
> you have verified the sender or the content.
>  Lena Wang (王娜) wrote:
> > On Tue, 2024-04-16 at 19:14 -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > >   
> > > External email : Please do not click links or open attachments
> until
> > > you have verified the sender or the content.
> > >  > > > > Personally, I think bpf_skb_pull_data() should have
> > > automatically
> > > > > > > (ie. in kernel code) reduced how much it pulls so that it
> > > would pull
> > > > > > > headers only,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That would be a helper that parses headers to discover
> header
> > > length.
> > > > >
> > > > > Does it actually need to?  Presumably the bpf pull function
> could
> > > > > notice that it is
> > > > > a packet flagged as being of type X (UDP GSO FRAGLIST) and
> reduce
> > > the pull
> > > > > accordingly so that it doesn't pull anything from the non-
> linear
> > > > > fraglist portion???
> > > > >
> > > > > I know only the generic overview of what udp gso is, not any
> > > details, so I am
> > > > > assuming here that there's some sort of guarantee to how
> these
> > > packets
> > > > > are structured...  But I imagine there must be or we wouldn't
> be
> > > hitting these
> > > > > issues deeper in the stack?
> > > > 
> > > > Perhaps for a packet of this type we're already guaranteed the
> > > headers
> > > > are in the linear portion,
> > > > and the pull should simply be ignored?
> > > > 
> > > > >
> > > > > > Parsing is better left to the BPF program.
> > > 
> > > I do prefer adding sanity checks to the BPF helpers, over having
> to
> > > add then in the net hot path only to protect against dangerous
> BPF
> > > programs.
> > > 
> > Is it OK to ignore or decrease pull length for udp gro fraglist
> packet?
> > It could save the normal packet and sent to user correctly.
> > 
> > In common/net/core/filter.c
> > static inline int __bpf_try_make_writable(struct sk_buff *skb,
> >               unsigned int write_len)
> > { 
> > +if (skb_is_gso(skb) && (skb_shinfo(skb)->gso_type &
> > +(SKB_GSO_UDP  |SKB_GSO_UDP_L4)) {
> 
> The issue is not with SKB_GSO_UDP_L4, but with SKB_GSO_FRAGLIST.
> 
Current in kernel just UDP uses SKB_GSO_FRAGLIST to do GRO. In
udp_offload.c udp4_gro_complete gso_type adds "SKB_GSO_FRAGLIST|
SKB_GSO_UDP_L4". Here checking these two flags is to limit the packet
as "UDP + need GSO + fraglist".

We could remove SKB_GSO_UDP_L4 check for more packet that may addrive
skb_segment_list.

> > +return 0;
> 
> Failing for any pull is a bit excessive. And would kill a sane
> workaround of pulling only as many bytes as needed.
>  
> > +     or if (write_len > skb_headlen(skb))
> > +write_len = skb_headlen(skb);
> 
> Truncating requests would be a surprising change of behavior
> for this function.
> 
> Failing for a pull > skb_headlen is arguably reasonable, as
> the alternative is that we let it go through but have to drop
> the now malformed packets on segmentation.
> 
> 
Is it OK as below?

In common/net/core/filter.c
static inline int __bpf_try_make_writable(struct sk_buff *skb,
              unsigned int write_len)
{ 
+       if (skb_is_gso(skb) && (skb_shinfo(skb)->gso_type &
+               SKB_GSO_FRAGLIST) && (write_len > skb_headlen(skb))) {
+               return 0;
+       }
        return skb_ensure_writable(skb, write_len);
}

> > +}
> > return skb_ensure_writable(skb, write_len);
> > }
> >  
> > 
> > > In this case, it would be detecting this GSO type and failing the
> > > operation if exceeding skb_headlen().
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > and not packet content.
> > > > > > > (This is assuming the rest of the code isn't ready to
> deal
> > > with a longer pull,
> > > > > > > which I think is the case atm.  Pulling too much, and
> then
> > > crashing or forcing
> > > > > > > the stack to drop packets because of them being malformed
> > > seems wrong...)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In general it would be nice if there was a way to just
> say
> > > pull all headers...
> > > > > > > (or possibly all L2/L3/L4 headers)
> > > > > > > You in general need to pull stuff *before* you've even
> looked
> > > at the packet,
> > > > > > > so that you can look at the packet,
> > > > > > > so it's relatively hard/annoying to pull the correct
> length
> > > from bpf
> > > > > > > code itself.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > BPF needs to modify a proper length to do pull
> data.
> > > However kernel
> > > > > > > > > > should also improve the flow to avoid crash from a
> bpf
> > > function
> > > > > > > > > call.
> > > > > > > > > > As there is no split flow and app may not decode
> the
> > > merged UDP
> > > > > > > > > packet,
> > > > > > > > > > we should drop the packet without fraglist in
> > > skb_segment_list
> > > > > > > > > here.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Fixes: 3a1296a38d0c ("net: Support GRO/GSO fraglist
> > > chaining.")
> > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Shiming Cheng <
> > > shiming.cheng@mediatek.com>
> > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lena Wang <lena.wang@mediatek.com>
> > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > >  net/core/skbuff.c | 3 +++
> > > > > > > > > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/net/core/skbuff.c b/net/core/skbuff.c
> > > > > > > > > > index b99127712e67..f68f2679b086 100644
> > > > > > > > > > --- a/net/core/skbuff.c
> > > > > > > > > > +++ b/net/core/skbuff.c
> > > > > > > > > > @@ -4504,6 +4504,9 @@ struct sk_buff
> > > *skb_segment_list(struct
> > > > > > > > > sk_buff *skb,
> > > > > > > > > >  if (err)
> > > > > > > > > >  goto err_linearize;
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > +if (!list_skb)
> > > > > > > > > > +goto err_linearize;
> > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This would catch the case where the entire data frag_list
> is
> > > > > > linearized, but not a pskb_may_pull that only pulls in part
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > list.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Even with BPF being privileged, the kernel should not crash
> if
> > > BPF
> > > > > > pulls a FRAGLIST GSO skb.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But the check needs to be refined a bit. For a UDP GSO
> packet,
> > > I
> > > > > > think gso_size is still valid, so if the head_skb length
> does
> > > not
> > > > > > match gso_size, it has been messed with and should be
> dropped.
> > > > > >
> > Is it OK as below? Is it OK to add log to record the error for easy
> > checking issue.
> > 
> > In net/core/skbuff.c skb_segment_list
> > +unsigned int mss = skb_shinfo(head_skb)->gso_size;
> > +bool err_len = false;
> > 
> > +if ( mss != GSO_BY_FRAGS && mss != skb_headlen(head_skb)) {
> > +pr_err("skb is dropped due to messed data. gso size:%d,
> > +hdrlen:%d", mss, skb_headlen(head_skb)
> 
> Such logs should always be rate limited. But no need to log cases
> where we well understood how we get there.
> 
> I would stick with one approach: either in the BPF func or in
> segmentation, not both. And then I find BPF preferable, as explained
> before.
> 
OK, we try make a patch in BPF func.

> > +if (!list_skb)
> > +goto err_linearize;
> > +else
> > +err_len = true;
> > +}
> > 
> > ...
> > +if (err_len) {
> > +goto err_linearize;
> > +}
> > 
> > skb_get(skb);
> > ...

  reply	other threads:[~2024-04-18  2:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-04-15 15:01 shiming.cheng
2024-04-15 20:53 ` Willem de Bruijn
2024-04-16  2:14   ` Lena Wang (王娜)
2024-04-16  2:53     ` Maciej Żenczykowski
2024-04-16 17:16       ` Willem de Bruijn
2024-04-16 17:51         ` Maciej Żenczykowski
2024-04-16 17:57           ` Maciej Żenczykowski
2024-04-16 23:14             ` Willem de Bruijn
2024-04-17  7:19               ` Lena Wang (王娜)
2024-04-17 19:48                 ` Willem de Bruijn
2024-04-18  2:52                   ` Lena Wang (王娜) [this message]
2024-04-18  4:15                     ` Maciej Żenczykowski
2024-04-19  8:36                       ` Lena Wang (王娜)
2024-04-19 14:17                         ` Willem de Bruijn
2024-04-19 17:29                           ` Maciej Żenczykowski
2024-04-19 17:41                             ` Willem de Bruijn
2024-04-23 14:47                               ` Lena Wang (王娜)
2024-04-23 18:35                                 ` Willem de Bruijn
2024-04-24 12:22                                   ` Lena Wang (王娜)
2024-04-24 14:28                                     ` Willem de Bruijn
2024-04-25  4:32                                       ` Lena Wang (王娜)
2024-04-25 14:07                                         ` Willem de Bruijn
2024-04-26  9:52                                           ` Lena Wang (王娜)
2024-04-26 21:08                                             ` Daniel Borkmann
2024-04-27 13:28                                               ` Willem de Bruijn
2024-04-28  7:48                                                 ` Lena Wang (王娜)
2024-04-28 13:19                                                   ` Willem de Bruijn
2024-04-29 10:15                                                   ` Daniel Borkmann
2024-04-29 11:45                                                     ` Lena Wang (王娜)
2024-04-29 15:11                                                       ` Daniel Borkmann
2024-04-29 21:14                                                         ` Willem de Bruijn
2024-04-26  0:16                                         ` Maciej Żenczykowski

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=11395231f8be21718f89981ffe3703da3f829742.camel@mediatek.com \
    --to=lena.wang@mediatek.com \
    --cc=Shiming.Cheng@mediatek.com \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=matthias.bgg@gmail.com \
    --cc=maze@google.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
    --cc=steffen.klassert@secunet.com \
    --cc=willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®