| Message ID | 1676529456-30988-1-git-send-email-alibuda@linux.alibaba.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | e40b801b3603a8f90b46acbacdea3505c27f01c0 |
| Delegated to: | Netdev Maintainers |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [net,v2] net/smc: fix potential panic dues to unprotected smc_llc_srv_add_link() | expand |
On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 02:37:36PM +0800, D. Wythe wrote: > From: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@linux.alibaba.com> > > There is a certain chance to trigger the following panic: > > PID: 5900 TASK: ffff88c1c8af4100 CPU: 1 COMMAND: "kworker/1:48" > #0 [ffff9456c1cc79a0] machine_kexec at ffffffff870665b7 > #1 [ffff9456c1cc79f0] __crash_kexec at ffffffff871b4c7a > #2 [ffff9456c1cc7ab0] crash_kexec at ffffffff871b5b60 > #3 [ffff9456c1cc7ac0] oops_end at ffffffff87026ce7 > #4 [ffff9456c1cc7ae0] page_fault_oops at ffffffff87075715 > #5 [ffff9456c1cc7b58] exc_page_fault at ffffffff87ad0654 > #6 [ffff9456c1cc7b80] asm_exc_page_fault at ffffffff87c00b62 > [exception RIP: ib_alloc_mr+19] > RIP: ffffffffc0c9cce3 RSP: ffff9456c1cc7c38 RFLAGS: 00010202 > RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000002 RCX: 0000000000000004 > RDX: 0000000000000010 RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: 0000000000000000 > RBP: ffff88c1ea281d00 R8: 000000020a34ffff R9: ffff88c1350bbb20 > R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000001 R12: 0000000000000000 > R13: 0000000000000010 R14: ffff88c1ab040a50 R15: ffff88c1ea281d00 > ORIG_RAX: ffffffffffffffff CS: 0010 SS: 0018 > #7 [ffff9456c1cc7c60] smc_ib_get_memory_region at ffffffffc0aff6df [smc] > #8 [ffff9456c1cc7c88] smcr_buf_map_link at ffffffffc0b0278c [smc] > #9 [ffff9456c1cc7ce0] __smc_buf_create at ffffffffc0b03586 [smc] > > The reason here is that when the server tries to create a second link, > smc_llc_srv_add_link() has no protection and may add a new link to > link group. This breaks the security environment protected by > llc_conf_mutex. > > Fixes: 2d2209f20189 ("net/smc: first part of add link processing as SMC server") > Signed-off-by: D. Wythe <alibuda@linux.alibaba.com> Reviewed-by: Larysa Zaremba <larysa.zaremba@intel.com> > --- > v2: rebase it with lastest net tree > > net/smc/af_smc.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/net/smc/af_smc.c b/net/smc/af_smc.c > index e12d4fa..d9413d4 100644 > --- a/net/smc/af_smc.c > +++ b/net/smc/af_smc.c > @@ -1826,8 +1826,10 @@ static int smcr_serv_conf_first_link(struct smc_sock *smc) > smc_llc_link_active(link); > smcr_lgr_set_type(link->lgr, SMC_LGR_SINGLE); > > + mutex_lock(&link->lgr->llc_conf_mutex); > /* initial contact - try to establish second link */ > smc_llc_srv_add_link(link, NULL); > + mutex_unlock(&link->lgr->llc_conf_mutex); > return 0; > } > > -- > 1.8.3.1 >
On 16.02.23 07:37, D. Wythe wrote: > From: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@linux.alibaba.com> > > There is a certain chance to trigger the following panic: > > PID: 5900 TASK: ffff88c1c8af4100 CPU: 1 COMMAND: "kworker/1:48" > #0 [ffff9456c1cc79a0] machine_kexec at ffffffff870665b7 > #1 [ffff9456c1cc79f0] __crash_kexec at ffffffff871b4c7a > #2 [ffff9456c1cc7ab0] crash_kexec at ffffffff871b5b60 > #3 [ffff9456c1cc7ac0] oops_end at ffffffff87026ce7 > #4 [ffff9456c1cc7ae0] page_fault_oops at ffffffff87075715 > #5 [ffff9456c1cc7b58] exc_page_fault at ffffffff87ad0654 > #6 [ffff9456c1cc7b80] asm_exc_page_fault at ffffffff87c00b62 > [exception RIP: ib_alloc_mr+19] > RIP: ffffffffc0c9cce3 RSP: ffff9456c1cc7c38 RFLAGS: 00010202 > RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000002 RCX: 0000000000000004 > RDX: 0000000000000010 RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: 0000000000000000 > RBP: ffff88c1ea281d00 R8: 000000020a34ffff R9: ffff88c1350bbb20 > R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000001 R12: 0000000000000000 > R13: 0000000000000010 R14: ffff88c1ab040a50 R15: ffff88c1ea281d00 > ORIG_RAX: ffffffffffffffff CS: 0010 SS: 0018 > #7 [ffff9456c1cc7c60] smc_ib_get_memory_region at ffffffffc0aff6df [smc] > #8 [ffff9456c1cc7c88] smcr_buf_map_link at ffffffffc0b0278c [smc] > #9 [ffff9456c1cc7ce0] __smc_buf_create at ffffffffc0b03586 [smc] > > The reason here is that when the server tries to create a second link, > smc_llc_srv_add_link() has no protection and may add a new link to > link group. This breaks the security environment protected by > llc_conf_mutex. > > Fixes: 2d2209f20189 ("net/smc: first part of add link processing as SMC server") > Signed-off-by: D. Wythe <alibuda@linux.alibaba.com> > --- > v2: rebase it with lastest net tree > > net/smc/af_smc.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/net/smc/af_smc.c b/net/smc/af_smc.c > index e12d4fa..d9413d4 100644 > --- a/net/smc/af_smc.c > +++ b/net/smc/af_smc.c > @@ -1826,8 +1826,10 @@ static int smcr_serv_conf_first_link(struct smc_sock *smc) > smc_llc_link_active(link); > smcr_lgr_set_type(link->lgr, SMC_LGR_SINGLE); > > + mutex_lock(&link->lgr->llc_conf_mutex); > /* initial contact - try to establish second link */ > smc_llc_srv_add_link(link, NULL); > + mutex_unlock(&link->lgr->llc_conf_mutex); > return 0; > } > Reviewed-by: Wenjia Zhang <wenjia@linux.ibm.com>
diff --git a/net/smc/af_smc.c b/net/smc/af_smc.c index e12d4fa..d9413d4 100644 --- a/net/smc/af_smc.c +++ b/net/smc/af_smc.c @@ -1826,8 +1826,10 @@ static int smcr_serv_conf_first_link(struct smc_sock *smc) smc_llc_link_active(link); smcr_lgr_set_type(link->lgr, SMC_LGR_SINGLE); + mutex_lock(&link->lgr->llc_conf_mutex); /* initial contact - try to establish second link */ smc_llc_srv_add_link(link, NULL); + mutex_unlock(&link->lgr->llc_conf_mutex); return 0; }