kernel/linux.git/net/rxrpc/sendmsg.c, branch v6.1.168

rxrpc: Fix hard call timeout units

2023-05-17T09:53:35+00:00

[ Upstream commit 0d098d83c5d9e107b2df7f5e11f81492f56d2fe7 ] The hard call timeout is specified in the RXRPC_SET_CALL_TIMEOUT cmsg in seconds, so fix the point at which sendmsg() applies it to the call to convert to jiffies from seconds, not milliseconds. Fixes: a158bdd3247b ("rxrpc: Fix timeout of a call that hasn't yet been granted a channel") Signed-off-by: David Howells cc: Marc Dionne cc: "David S. Miller" cc: Eric Dumazet cc: Jakub Kicinski cc: Paolo Abeni cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: David S. Miller Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

rxrpc: Fix missing unlock in rxrpc_do_sendmsg()

2022-12-31T12:32:55+00:00

[ Upstream commit 4feb2c44629e6f9b459b41a5a60491069d346a95 ] One of the error paths in rxrpc_do_sendmsg() doesn't unlock the call mutex before returning. Fix it to do this. Note that this still doesn't get rid of the checker warning: ../net/rxrpc/sendmsg.c:617:5: warning: context imbalance in 'rxrpc_do_sendmsg' - wrong count at exit I think the interplay between the socket lock and the call's user_mutex may be too complicated for checker to analyse, especially as rxrpc_new_client_call_for_sendmsg(), which it calls, returns with the call's user_mutex if successful but unconditionally drops the socket lock. Fixes: e754eba685aa ("rxrpc: Provide a cmsg to specify the amount of Tx data for a call") Signed-off-by: David Howells cc: Marc Dionne cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org Signed-off-by: David S. Miller Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

rxrpc: Fix locking in rxrpc's sendmsg

2022-08-25T19:39:40+00:00

Fix three bugs in the rxrpc's sendmsg implementation: (1) rxrpc_new_client_call() should release the socket lock when returning an error from rxrpc_get_call_slot(). (2) rxrpc_wait_for_tx_window_intr() will return without the call mutex held in the event that we're interrupted by a signal whilst waiting for tx space on the socket or relocking the call mutex afterwards. Fix this by: (a) moving the unlock/lock of the call mutex up to rxrpc_send_data() such that the lock is not held around all of rxrpc_wait_for_tx_window*() and (b) indicating to higher callers whether we're return with the lock dropped. Note that this means recvmsg() will not block on this call whilst we're waiting. (3) After dropping and regaining the call mutex, rxrpc_send_data() needs to go and recheck the state of the tx_pending buffer and the tx_total_len check in case we raced with another sendmsg() on the same call. Thinking on this some more, it might make sense to have different locks for sendmsg() and recvmsg(). There's probably no need to make recvmsg() wait for sendmsg(). It does mean that recvmsg() can return MSG_EOR indicating that a call is dead before a sendmsg() to that call returns - but that can currently happen anyway. Without fix (2), something like the following can be induced: WARNING: bad unlock balance detected! 5.16.0-rc6-syzkaller #0 Not tainted ------------------------------------- syz-executor011/3597 is trying to release lock (&call->user_mutex) at: [] rxrpc_do_sendmsg+0xc13/0x1350 net/rxrpc/sendmsg.c:748 but there are no more locks to release! other info that might help us debug this: no locks held by syz-executor011/3597. ... Call Trace: __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:88 [inline] dump_stack_lvl+0xcd/0x134 lib/dump_stack.c:106 print_unlock_imbalance_bug include/trace/events/lock.h:58 [inline] __lock_release kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5306 [inline] lock_release.cold+0x49/0x4e kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5657 __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x99/0x5e0 kernel/locking/mutex.c:900 rxrpc_do_sendmsg+0xc13/0x1350 net/rxrpc/sendmsg.c:748 rxrpc_sendmsg+0x420/0x630 net/rxrpc/af_rxrpc.c:561 sock_sendmsg_nosec net/socket.c:704 [inline] sock_sendmsg+0xcf/0x120 net/socket.c:724 ____sys_sendmsg+0x6e8/0x810 net/socket.c:2409 ___sys_sendmsg+0xf3/0x170 net/socket.c:2463 __sys_sendmsg+0xe5/0x1b0 net/socket.c:2492 do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline] do_syscall_64+0x35/0xb0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae [Thanks to Hawkins Jiawei and Khalid Masum for their attempts to fix this] Fixes: bc5e3a546d55 ("rxrpc: Use MSG_WAITALL to tell sendmsg() to temporarily ignore signals") Reported-by: syzbot+7f0483225d0c94cb3441@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Signed-off-by: David Howells Reviewed-by: Marc Dionne Tested-by: syzbot+7f0483225d0c94cb3441@syzkaller.appspotmail.com cc: Hawkins Jiawei cc: Khalid Masum cc: Dan Carpenter cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/166135894583.600315.7170979436768124075.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski

rxrpc: Return an error to sendmsg if call failed

2022-05-22T20:03:02+00:00

If at the end of rxrpc sendmsg() or rxrpc_kernel_send_data() the call that was being given data was aborted remotely or otherwise failed, return an error rather than returning the amount of data buffered for transmission. The call (presumably) did not complete, so there's not much point continuing with it. AF_RXRPC considers it "complete" and so will be unwilling to do anything else with it - and won't send a notification for it, deeming the return from sendmsg sufficient. Not returning an error causes afs to incorrectly handle a StoreData operation that gets interrupted by a change of address due to NAT reconfiguration. This doesn't normally affect most operations since their request parameters tend to fit into a single UDP packet and afs_make_call() returns before the server responds; StoreData is different as it involves transmission of a lot of data. This can be triggered on a client by doing something like: dd if=/dev/zero of=/afs/example.com/foo bs=1M count=512 at one prompt, and then changing the network address at another prompt, e.g.: ifconfig enp6s0 inet 192.168.6.2 && route add 192.168.6.1 dev enp6s0 Tracing packets on an Auristor fileserver looks something like: 192.168.6.1 -> 192.168.6.3 RX 107 ACK Idle Seq: 0 Call: 4 Source Port: 7000 Destination Port: 7001 192.168.6.3 -> 192.168.6.1 AFS (RX) 1482 FS Request: Unknown(64538) (64538) 192.168.6.3 -> 192.168.6.1 AFS (RX) 1482 FS Request: Unknown(64538) (64538) 192.168.6.1 -> 192.168.6.3 RX 107 ACK Idle Seq: 0 Call: 4 Source Port: 7000 Destination Port: 7001 192.168.6.2 -> 192.168.6.1 AFS (RX) 1482 FS Request: Unknown(0) (0) 192.168.6.2 -> 192.168.6.1 AFS (RX) 1482 FS Request: Unknown(0) (0) 192.168.6.1 -> 192.168.6.2 RX 107 ACK Exceeds Window Seq: 0 Call: 4 Source Port: 7000 Destination Port: 7001 192.168.6.1 -> 192.168.6.2 RX 74 ABORT Seq: 0 Call: 4 Source Port: 7000 Destination Port: 7001 192.168.6.1 -> 192.168.6.2 RX 74 ABORT Seq: 29321 Call: 4 Source Port: 7000 Destination Port: 7001 The Auristor fileserver logs code -453 (RXGEN_SS_UNMARSHAL), but the abort code received by kafs is -5 (RX_PROTOCOL_ERROR) as the rx layer sees the condition and generates an abort first and the unmarshal error is a consequence of that at the application layer. Reported-by: Marc Dionne Signed-off-by: David Howells cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org Link: http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-afs/2021-December/004810.html # v1 Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

rxrpc: Ask the security class how much space to allow in a packet

2020-11-23T19:53:11+00:00

Ask the security class how much header and trailer space to allow for when allocating a packet, given how much data is remaining. This will allow the rxgk security class to stick both a trailer in as well as a header as appropriate in the future. Signed-off-by: David Howells

rxrpc: Don't reserve security header in Tx DATA skbuff

2020-11-23T18:09:30+00:00

Insert the security header into the skbuff representing a DATA packet to be transmitted rather than using skb_reserve() when the packet is allocated. This makes it easier to apply crypto that spans the security header and the data, particularly in the upcoming RxGK class where we have a common encrypt-and-checksum function that is used in a number of circumstances. Signed-off-by: David Howells

rxrpc: Fix accept on a connection that need securing

2020-10-05T15:35:57+00:00

When a new incoming call arrives at an userspace rxrpc socket on a new connection that has a security class set, the code currently pushes it onto the accept queue to hold a ref on it for the socket. This doesn't work, however, as recvmsg() pops it off, notices that it's in the SERVER_SECURING state and discards the ref. This means that the call runs out of refs too early and the kernel oopses. By contrast, a kernel rxrpc socket manually pre-charges the incoming call pool with calls that already have user call IDs assigned, so they are ref'd by the call tree on the socket. Change the mode of operation for userspace rxrpc server sockets to work like this too. Although this is a UAPI change, server sockets aren't currently functional. Fixes: 248f219cb8bc ("rxrpc: Rewrite the data and ack handling code") Signed-off-by: David Howells

treewide: Use fallthrough pseudo-keyword

2020-08-23T22:36:59+00:00

Replace the existing /* fall through */ comments and its variants with the new pseudo-keyword macro fallthrough[1]. Also, remove unnecessary fall-through markings when it is the case. [1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.7/process/deprecated.html?highlight=fallthrough#implicit-switch-case-fall-through Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva

rxrpc: Fix race between recvmsg and sendmsg on immediate call failure

2020-07-30T23:50:20+00:00

There's a race between rxrpc_sendmsg setting up a call, but then failing to send anything on it due to an error, and recvmsg() seeing the call completion occur and trying to return the state to the user. An assertion fails in rxrpc_recvmsg() because the call has already been released from the socket and is about to be released again as recvmsg deals with it. (The recvmsg_q queue on the socket holds a ref, so there's no problem with use-after-free.) We also have to be careful not to end up reporting an error twice, in such a way that both returns indicate to userspace that the user ID supplied with the call is no longer in use - which could cause the client to malfunction if it recycles the user ID fast enough. Fix this by the following means: (1) When sendmsg() creates a call after the point that the call has been successfully added to the socket, don't return any errors through sendmsg(), but rather complete the call and let recvmsg() retrieve them. Make sendmsg() return 0 at this point. Further calls to sendmsg() for that call will fail with ESHUTDOWN. Note that at this point, we haven't send any packets yet, so the server doesn't yet know about the call. (2) If sendmsg() returns an error when it was expected to create a new call, it means that the user ID wasn't used. (3) Mark the call disconnected before marking it completed to prevent an oops in rxrpc_release_call(). (4) recvmsg() will then retrieve the error and set MSG_EOR to indicate that the user ID is no longer known by the kernel. An oops like the following is produced: kernel BUG at net/rxrpc/recvmsg.c:605! ... RIP: 0010:rxrpc_recvmsg+0x256/0x5ae ... Call Trace: ? __init_waitqueue_head+0x2f/0x2f ____sys_recvmsg+0x8a/0x148 ? import_iovec+0x69/0x9c ? copy_msghdr_from_user+0x5c/0x86 ___sys_recvmsg+0x72/0xaa ? __fget_files+0x22/0x57 ? __fget_light+0x46/0x51 ? fdget+0x9/0x1b do_recvmmsg+0x15e/0x232 ? _raw_spin_unlock+0xa/0xb ? vtime_delta+0xf/0x25 __x64_sys_recvmmsg+0x2c/0x2f do_syscall_64+0x4c/0x78 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 Fixes: 357f5ef64628 ("rxrpc: Call rxrpc_release_call() on error in rxrpc_new_client_call()") Reported-by: syzbot+b54969381df354936d96@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Signed-off-by: David Howells Reviewed-by: Marc Dionne Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

rxrpc: Fix sendmsg() returning EPIPE due to recvmsg() returning ENODATA

2020-07-21T00:47:10+00:00

rxrpc_sendmsg() returns EPIPE if there's an outstanding error, such as if rxrpc_recvmsg() indicating ENODATA if there's nothing for it to read. Change rxrpc_recvmsg() to return EAGAIN instead if there's nothing to read as this particular error doesn't get stored in ->sk_err by the networking core. Also change rxrpc_sendmsg() so that it doesn't fail with delayed receive errors (there's no way for it to report which call, if any, the error was caused by). Fixes: 17926a79320a ("[AF_RXRPC]: Provide secure RxRPC sockets for use by userspace and kernel both") Signed-off-by: David Howells Signed-off-by: David S. Miller