[Bridge] [patch net/stable v2] br: fix use of ->rx_handler_data in code executed on non-rx_handler path

[Jiri Pirko]

Sat, Dec 07, 2013 at 08:10:45PM CET, vyasevich at gmail.com wrote:
>On 12/07/2013 03:51 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 10:10:28PM CET, stephen at networkplumber.org wrote:
>>> On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 15:43:21 -0500 (EST)
>>> David Miller <davem at davemloft.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: Jiri Pirko <jiri at resnulli.us>
>>>> Date: Thu,  5 Dec 2013 16:27:37 +0100
>>>>
>>>>> br_stp_rcv() is reached by non-rx_handler path. That means there is no
>>>>> guarantee that dev is bridge port and therefore simple NULL check of
>>>>> ->rx_handler_data is not enough. There is need to check if dev is really
>>>>> bridge port and since only rcu read lock is held here, do it by checking
>>>>> ->rx_handler pointer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that synchronize_net() in netdev_rx_handler_unregister() ensures
>>>>> this approach as valid.
>>>>>
>>>>> Introduced originally by:
>>>>> commit f350a0a87374418635689471606454abc7beaa3a
>>>>>   "bridge: use rx_handler_data pointer to store net_bridge_port pointer"
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixed but not in the best way by:
>>>>> commit b5ed54e94d324f17c97852296d61a143f01b227a
>>>>>   "bridge: fix RCU races with bridge port"
>>>>>
>>>>> Reintroduced by:
>>>>> commit 716ec052d2280d511e10e90ad54a86f5b5d4dcc2
>>>>>   "bridge: fix NULL pointer deref of br_port_get_rcu"
>>>>>
>>>>> Please apply to stable trees as well. Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> RH bugzilla reference: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025770
>>>>>
>>>>> Reported-by: Laine Stump <laine at redhat.com>
>>>>> Debugged-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri at resnulli.us>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> v1->v2: moved br_port_get_check_rcu definition below br_handle_frame definition
>>>>
>>>> Applied and queued up for -stable, thanks Jiri.
>>>
>>> How come you ignored my simpler fix, that used the existing logic.
>>> I don't like introducing this especially into the stable; much prefer
>>> to go back to testing the flag as was being done before.
>> 
>> Although your patch is technically sane, it depends on rtnl indirectly.
>
>Pardon my ignorance, but I've been staring at this and I can't for
>the life of me see the dependency.
>
>The IFF_BRIDGE_PORT flag is set after the rx_handler is registered,
>so we are safe there.  The rcu primitives will guarantee that the flag
>will be set by the time rx_handler and rx_handler_data are set.
>
>The flag is cleared before rx_handler is unregistered, so it is
>still valid to check for it in stp code.  Once the flag is cleared
>we may still have a valid rx_handler during the rcu grace period, but
>will still avoid doing processing.
>
>So, where is the dependency on the rtnl?


Imagine br would release the netdev and some other rx_handler user would
enslave the same netdev. This two events would happen between
IFF_BRIDGE_PORT flag check and rx_handler_data get. That is what
rtnl_lock prevents from happening.

>
>Thanks
>-vlad
>
>> My patch depends on rcu locking and synchronize_rcu which is direct.
>> Therefore I think it is more appropriate.
>> 
>> Jiri
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>> 
>