> From: Pavel Skripkin <paskrip...@gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2021 22:28:13 +0300
>
> > Hi, thanks for reply!
> >
> > > From: Pavel Skripkin <paskrip...@gmail.com>
> > > Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2021 20:51:14 +0300
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > > syzbot found WARNING in __alloc_pages_nodemask()[1] when order
> > > > >=
> > > > MAX_ORDER.
> > > > It was caused by __netdev_alloc_skb(), which doesn't check len
> > > > value after adding NET_SKB_PAD.
> > > > Order will be >= MAX_ORDER and passed to
> > > > __alloc_pages_nodemask()
> > > > if size > KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE.
> > > > Same happens in __napi_alloc_skb.
> > > >
> > > > static void *kmalloc_large_node(size_t size, gfp_t flags, int
> > > > node)
> > > > {
> > > > struct page *page;
> > > > void *ptr = NULL;
> > > > unsigned int order = get_order(size);
> > > > ...
> > > > page = alloc_pages_node(node, flags, order);
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > [1] WARNING in __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x5f8/0x730
> > > > mm/page_alloc.c:5014
> > > > Call Trace:
> > > > __alloc_pages include/linux/gfp.h:511 [inline]
> > > > __alloc_pages_node include/linux/gfp.h:524 [inline]
> > > > alloc_pages_node include/linux/gfp.h:538 [inline]
> > > > kmalloc_large_node+0x60/0x110 mm/slub.c:3999
> > > > __kmalloc_node_track_caller+0x319/0x3f0 mm/slub.c:4496
> > > > __kmalloc_reserve net/core/skbuff.c:150 [inline]
> > > > __alloc_skb+0x4e4/0x5a0 net/core/skbuff.c:210
> > > > __netdev_alloc_skb+0x70/0x400 net/core/skbuff.c:446
> > > > netdev_alloc_skb include/linux/skbuff.h:2832 [inline]
> > > > qrtr_endpoint_post+0x84/0x11b0 net/qrtr/qrtr.c:442
> > > > qrtr_tun_write_iter+0x11f/0x1a0 net/qrtr/tun.c:98
> > > > call_write_iter include/linux/fs.h:1901 [inline]
> > > > new_sync_write+0x426/0x650 fs/read_write.c:518
> > > > vfs_write+0x791/0xa30 fs/read_write.c:605
> > > > ksys_write+0x12d/0x250 fs/read_write.c:658
> > > > do_syscall_64+0x2d/0x70 arch/x86/entry/common.c:46
> > > > entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
> > >
> > > Ah, by the way. Have you tried to seek for the root cause, why
> > > a request for such insanely large (at least 4 Mib) skb happens
> > > in QRTR? I don't believe it's intended to be like this.
> > > Now I feel that silencing this error with early return isn't
> > > really correct approach for this.
> >
> > Yeah, i figured it out. Syzbot provides reproducer for thig bug:
> >
> > void loop(void)
> > {
> > intptr_t res = 0;
> > memcpy((void*)0x20000000, "/dev/qrtr-tun\000", 14);
> > res = syscall(__NR_openat, 0xffffffffffffff9cul, 0x20000000ul,
> > 1ul,
> > 0);
> > if (res != -1)
> > r[0] = res;
> > memcpy((void*)0x20000040, "\x02", 1);
> > syscall(__NR_write, r[0], 0x20000040ul, 0x400000ul);
> > }
> >
> > So, simply it writes to /dev/qrtr-tun 0x400000 bytes.
> > In qrtr_tun_write_iter there is a check, that the length is smaller
> > than KMALLOC_MAX_VSIZE. Then the length is passed to
> > __netdev_alloc_skb, where it becomes more than KMALLOC_MAX_VSIZE.
>
> I've checked the logics in qrtr_tun_write_iter(). Seems like it's
> only trying to prevent kzallocs of sizes larger than the maximum
> and doesn't care about netdev_alloc_skb() at all, as it ignores
> the fact that, besides NET_SKB_PAD and NET_IP_ALIGN, skbs always
> have SKB_DATA_ALIGN(sizeof(struct skb_shared_info)) on top of
> the "usable" size.
>
> On the other hand, skb memory overheads, kmalloc bounds etc. are
> an internal thing and all related corner cases should be handled
> inside the implementations, not the users. From this point, even
> this check for (len < KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE) is a bit bogus.
> I think in that particular case with the size coming from userspace
> (i.e. untrusted source), the allocations (both kzalloc() and
> __netdev_alloc_skb()) should be performed with __GFP_NOWARN, so
> insane values won't provoke any splats.
>
> So maybe use it as a fix for this particular warning (seems like
> it's the sole place in the entire kernel that can potentially
> request such skb allocations) and don't add any branches into
> hot *alloc_skb() at all?
Well, it seems like it's better solution for this
specific warning. Thanks for quick feedback, I'll send You new patch
version soon.
> We might add a cap for max skb length later, as Jakub pointed.
>
> > > > Reported-by:
> > > > syzbot+80dccaee7c6630fa9...@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> > > > Signed-off-by: Pavel Skripkin <paskrip...@gmail.com>
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Changes from v3:
> > > > * Removed Change-Id and extra tabs in net/core/skbuff.c
> > > >
> > > > Changes from v2:
> > > > * Added length check to __napi_alloc_skb
> > > > * Added unlikely() in checks
> > > >
> > > > Change from v1:
> > > > * Added length check to __netdev_alloc_skb
> > > > ---
> > > > net/core/skbuff.c | 6 ++++++
> > > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/net/core/skbuff.c b/net/core/skbuff.c
> > > > index 785daff48030..ec7ba8728b61 100644
> > > > --- a/net/core/skbuff.c
> > > > +++ b/net/core/skbuff.c
> > > > @@ -443,6 +443,9 @@ struct sk_buff *__netdev_alloc_skb(struct
> > > > net_device *dev, unsigned int len,
> > > > if (len <= SKB_WITH_OVERHEAD(1024) ||
> > > > len > SKB_WITH_OVERHEAD(PAGE_SIZE) ||
> > > > (gfp_mask & (__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM | GFP_DMA))) {
> > > > + if (unlikely(len > KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE))
> > > > + return NULL;
> > > > +
> > > > skb = __alloc_skb(len, gfp_mask, SKB_ALLOC_RX,
> > > > NUMA_NO_NODE);
> > > > if (!skb)
> > > > goto skb_fail;
> > > > @@ -517,6 +520,9 @@ struct sk_buff *__napi_alloc_skb(struct
> > > > napi_struct *napi, unsigned int len,
> > > > if (len <= SKB_WITH_OVERHEAD(1024) ||
> > > > len > SKB_WITH_OVERHEAD(PAGE_SIZE) ||
> > > > (gfp_mask & (__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM | GFP_DMA))) {
> > > > + if (unlikely(len > KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE))
> > > > + return NULL;
> > > > +
> > > > skb = __alloc_skb(len, gfp_mask, SKB_ALLOC_RX,
> > > > NUMA_NO_NODE);
> > > > if (!skb)
> > > > goto skb_fail;
> > > > --
> > > > 2.25.1
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Al
> > >
> >
> > With regards,
> > Pavel Skripkin
>
> Thanks,
> Al
>
With regards,
Pavel Skripkin
