On 31/10/2024 16:25, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
2024-10-29, 11:47:25 +0100, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
+static void ovpn_socket_release_work(struct work_struct *work) +{
- struct ovpn_socket *sock = container_of(work, struct ovpn_socket, work);
- ovpn_socket_detach(sock->sock);
- kfree_rcu(sock, rcu);
+}
+static void ovpn_socket_schedule_release(struct ovpn_socket *sock) +{
- INIT_WORK(&sock->work, ovpn_socket_release_work);
- schedule_work(&sock->work);
How does module unloading know that it has to wait for this work to complete? Will ovpn_cleanup get stuck until some refcount gets released by this work?
No, we have no such mechanism. Any idea how other modules do?
Actually this makes me wonder how module unloading coordinates with the code being executed. Unload may happen at any time - how do we prevent killing the code in the middle of something (regardless of scheduled workers)?
[...]
+static void ovpn_tcp_rcv(struct strparser *strp, struct sk_buff *skb) +{
- struct ovpn_peer *peer = container_of(strp, struct ovpn_peer, tcp.strp);
- struct strp_msg *msg = strp_msg(skb);
- size_t pkt_len = msg->full_len - 2;
- size_t off = msg->offset + 2;
- /* ensure skb->data points to the beginning of the openvpn packet */
- if (!pskb_pull(skb, off)) {
net_warn_ratelimited("%s: packet too small\n",peer->ovpn->dev->name);goto err;- }
- /* strparser does not trim the skb for us, therefore we do it now */
- if (pskb_trim(skb, pkt_len) != 0) {
net_warn_ratelimited("%s: trimming skb failed\n",peer->ovpn->dev->name);goto err;- }
- /* we need the first byte of data to be accessible
* to extract the opcode and the key ID later on*/- if (!pskb_may_pull(skb, 1)) {
net_warn_ratelimited("%s: packet too small to fetch opcode\n",peer->ovpn->dev->name);goto err;- }
- /* DATA_V2 packets are handled in kernel, the rest goes to user space */
- if (likely(ovpn_opcode_from_skb(skb, 0) == OVPN_DATA_V2)) {
/* hold reference to peer as required by ovpn_recv().** NOTE: in this context we should already be holding a* reference to this peer, therefore ovpn_peer_hold() is* not expected to fail*/if (WARN_ON(!ovpn_peer_hold(peer)))goto err;ovpn_recv(peer, skb);- } else {
/* The packet size header must be there when sending the packet* to userspace, therefore we put it back*/skb_push(skb, 2);ovpn_tcp_to_userspace(peer, strp->sk, skb);- }
- return;
+err:
- netdev_err(peer->ovpn->dev,
"cannot process incoming TCP data for peer %u\n", peer->id);This should also be ratelimited, and maybe just combined with the net_warn_ratelimited just before each goto.
ACK.
- dev_core_stats_rx_dropped_inc(peer->ovpn->dev);
- kfree_skb(skb);
- ovpn_peer_del(peer, OVPN_DEL_PEER_REASON_TRANSPORT_ERROR);
+}
[...]
+void ovpn_tcp_socket_detach(struct socket *sock) +{
[...]
- /* restore CBs that were saved in ovpn_sock_set_tcp_cb() */
- sock->sk->sk_data_ready = peer->tcp.sk_cb.sk_data_ready;
- sock->sk->sk_write_space = peer->tcp.sk_cb.sk_write_space;
- sock->sk->sk_prot = peer->tcp.sk_cb.prot;
- sock->sk->sk_socket->ops = peer->tcp.sk_cb.ops;
- rcu_assign_sk_user_data(sock->sk, NULL);
- rcu_read_unlock();
- /* cancel any ongoing work. Done after removing the CBs so that these
* workers cannot be re-armed*/I'm not sure whether a barrier is needed to prevent compiler/CPU reordering here.
I see ipsec has one in espintcp.c. I think it makes sense to add it right here.
- cancel_work_sync(&peer->tcp.tx_work);
- strp_done(&peer->tcp.strp);
+}
+static void ovpn_tcp_send_sock(struct ovpn_peer *peer) +{
- struct sk_buff *skb = peer->tcp.out_msg.skb;
- if (!skb)
return;- if (peer->tcp.tx_in_progress)
return;- peer->tcp.tx_in_progress = true;
Sorry, I never answered your question about my concerns in a previous review here.
We can reach ovpn_tcp_send_sock in two different contexts:
- lock_sock (either from ovpn_tcp_sendmsg or ovpn_tcp_tx_work)
- bh_lock_sock (from ovpn_tcp_send_skb, ie "data path")
These are not fully mutually exclusive. lock_sock grabs bh_lock_sock (a spinlock) for a brief period to mark the (sleeping/mutex) lock as taken, and then releases it.
So when bh_lock_sock is held, it's not possible to grab lock_sock. But when lock_sock is taken, it's still possible to grab bh_lock_sock.
The buggy scenario would be:
(data path encrypt) (sendmsg) ovpn_tcp_send_skb lock_sock bh_lock_sock + owned=1 + bh_unlock_sock bh_lock_sock ovpn_tcp_send_sock_skb ovpn_tcp_send_sock_skb !peer->tcp.out_msg.skb !peer->tcp.out_msg.skb peer->tcp.out_msg.skb = ... peer->tcp.out_msg.skb = ... ovpn_tcp_send_sock ovpn_tcp_send_sock !peer->tcp.tx_in_progress !peer->tcp.tx_in_progress peer->tcp.tx_in_progress = true peer->tcp.tx_in_progress = true // proceed // proceed
That's 2 similar races, one on out_msg.skb and one on tx_in_progress. It's a bit unlikely (but not impossible) that we'll have 2 cpus trying to call skb_send_sock_locked at the same time, but if they just overwrite each other's skb/len it's already pretty bad. The end of ovpn_tcp_send_sock might also reset peer->tcp.out_msg.* just as ovpn_tcp_send_skb -> ovpn_tcp_send_sock_skb starts setting it up (peer->tcp.out_msg.skb gets cleared, ovpn_tcp_send_sock_skb proceeds and sets skb+len, then maybe len gets reset to 0 by ovpn_tcp_send_sock).
To avoid this problem, esp_output_tcp_finish (net/ipv4/esp4.c) does:
bh_lock_sock(sk); if (sock_owned_by_user(sk)) err = espintcp_queue_out(sk, skb); else err = espintcp_push_skb(sk, skb); bh_unlock_sock(sk);
(espintcp_push_skb is roughly equivalent to ovpn_tcp_send_sock_skb)
mh I see...so basically while sendmsg is running we should stash all packets and send them out in one go upon lock release (via release_cb).
Will get that done in v12! Thanks!
- do {
int ret = skb_send_sock_locked(peer->sock->sock->sk, skb,peer->tcp.out_msg.offset,peer->tcp.out_msg.len);if (unlikely(ret < 0)) {if (ret == -EAGAIN)goto out;net_warn_ratelimited("%s: TCP error to peer %u: %d\n",peer->ovpn->dev->name, peer->id,ret);/* in case of TCP error we can't recover the VPN* stream therefore we abort the connection*/ovpn_peer_del(peer,OVPN_DEL_PEER_REASON_TRANSPORT_ERROR);break;}peer->tcp.out_msg.len -= ret;peer->tcp.out_msg.offset += ret;- } while (peer->tcp.out_msg.len > 0);
- if (!peer->tcp.out_msg.len)
dev_sw_netstats_tx_add(peer->ovpn->dev, 1, skb->len);- kfree_skb(peer->tcp.out_msg.skb);
- peer->tcp.out_msg.skb = NULL;
- peer->tcp.out_msg.len = 0;
- peer->tcp.out_msg.offset = 0;
+out:
- peer->tcp.tx_in_progress = false;
+}
+static void ovpn_tcp_tx_work(struct work_struct *work) +{
- struct ovpn_peer *peer;
- peer = container_of(work, struct ovpn_peer, tcp.tx_work);
- lock_sock(peer->sock->sock->sk);
- ovpn_tcp_send_sock(peer);
- release_sock(peer->sock->sock->sk);
+}
+void ovpn_tcp_send_sock_skb(struct ovpn_peer *peer, struct sk_buff *skb) +{
- if (peer->tcp.out_msg.skb)
return;That's leaking the skb? (and not counting the drop)
we should not lose this packet..[continues below]
- peer->tcp.out_msg.skb = skb;
- peer->tcp.out_msg.len = skb->len;
- peer->tcp.out_msg.offset = 0;
- ovpn_tcp_send_sock(peer);
+}
+static int ovpn_tcp_sendmsg(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr *msg, size_t size) +{
[...]
- ret = skb_copy_datagram_from_iter(skb, 0, &msg->msg_iter, size);
- if (ret) {
kfree_skb(skb);net_err_ratelimited("%s: skb copy from iter failed: %d\n",sock->peer->ovpn->dev->name, ret);goto unlock;- }
- ovpn_tcp_send_sock_skb(sock->peer, skb);
If we didn't send the packet (because one was already queued/in progress), we should either stash it, or tell userspace that it wasn't sent and it should retry later.
In the part you omitted we have the following (while holding lock_sock):
320 if (peer->tcp.out_msg.skb) { 321 ret = -EAGAIN; 322 goto unlock; 323 }
Therefore ovpn_tcp_send_sock_skb() should never drop the packet if this condition was already evaluated false.
But if I understood all your notes correctly, the data path may still overlap here because it never holds the lock_sock and thus fill .skb after ovpn_tcp_sendmsg() has checked it. Am I right?
However, this race should not be possible anymore once I implement the sock_owned_by_user() check you suggested above. Because ovpn_tcp_sendmsg() will be invoked with owned=1 which will prevent the data path from attempting to send more packets.
Do you agree?
Thanks a lot for pointing this out! The inner mechanisms of TCP socks are still a bit obscure to me.
Regards,