lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Nov]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: KMSAN: uninit-value in can_receive
From
Date
Hi Eric,

On 19/11/2019 17.53, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>
> On 11/18/19 11:35 PM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> See ioctl$ifreq https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=14563416e00000
>>
>> 23:11:34 executing program 2:
>> r0 = socket(0x200000000000011, 0x3, 0x0)
>> ioctl$ifreq_SIOCGIFINDEX_vcan(r0, 0x8933, &(0x7f0000000040)={'vxcan1\x00', <r1=>0x0})
>> bind$packet(r0, &(0x7f0000000300)={0x11, 0xc, r1}, 0x14)
>> sendmmsg(r0, &(0x7f0000000d00), 0x400004e, 0x0)
>>
>> We only can receive skbs from (v(x))can devices.
>> No matter if someone wrote to them via PF_CAN or PF_PACKET.
>> We check for ETH_P_CAN(FD) type and ARPHRD_CAN dev type at rx time.
>
> And what entity sets the can_skb_prv(skb)->skbcnt to zero exactly ?
>
>>
>>>> We additionally might think about introducing a check whether we have a
>>>> can_skb_reserve() created skbuff.
>>>>
>>>> But even if someone forged a skbuff without this reserved space the
>>>> access to can_skb_prv(skb)->skbcnt would point into some CAN frame
>>>> content - which is still no access to uninitialized content, right?
>>
>> So this question remains still valid whether we have a false positive from KMSAN here.
>
> I do not believe it is a false positive.
>
> It seems CAN relies on some properties of low level drivers using alloc_can_skb() or similar function.
>
> Why not simply fix this like that ?
>
> diff --git a/net/can/af_can.c b/net/can/af_can.c
> index 128d37a4c2e0ba5d8db69fcceec8cbd6a79380df..3e71a78d82af84caaacd0ef512b5e894efbf4852 100644
> --- a/net/can/af_can.c
> +++ b/net/can/af_can.c
> @@ -647,8 +647,9 @@ static void can_receive(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev)
> pkg_stats->rx_frames_delta++;
>
> /* create non-zero unique skb identifier together with *skb */
> - while (!(can_skb_prv(skb)->skbcnt))
> + do {
> can_skb_prv(skb)->skbcnt = atomic_inc_return(&skbcounter);
> + } while (!(can_skb_prv(skb)->skbcnt));
>
> rcu_read_lock();
>

Please check commit d3b58c47d330d ("can: replace timestamp as unique skb
attribute").

can_skb_prv(skb)->skbcnt is set to 0 at skb creation time when sending
CAN frames from local host or receiving CAN frames from a real CAN
interface.

When a CAN skb is received by the net layer the *first* time it gets a
unique value which we need for a per-cpu filter mechanism in raw_rcv().

So where's the problem to check for (!(can_skb_prv(skb)->skbcnt)) in a
while statement? I can't see a chance for an uninitialized value there.

Regards,
Oliver

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-11-19 21:32    [W:1.413 / U:0.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site