Re: [PATCH v3] drivers: net: prevent tun_get_user() to exceed xdp size limits

[Paolo Abeni]

On Thu, 2023-07-27 at 14:07 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 8:27 AM David Ahern <dsahern@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > On 7/26/23 1:37 PM, David Ahern wrote:
> > > On 7/26/23 3:02 AM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> > > > Cc. John and Ahern
> > > > 
> > > > On 26/07/2023 04.09, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 11:54 PM Andrew Kanner
> > > > > <andrew.kanner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Syzkaller reported the following issue:
> > > > > > =======================================
> > > > > > Too BIG xdp->frame_sz = 131072
> > > > 
> > > > Is this a contiguous physical memory allocation?
> > > > 
> > > > 131072 bytes equal order 5 page.
> > > > 
> > > > Looking at tun.c code I cannot find a code path that could create
> > > > order-5 skb->data, but only SKB with order-0 fragments.  But I guess it
> > > > is the netif_receive_generic_xdp() what will realloc to make this linear
> > > > (via skb_linearize())
> > > 
> > > 
> > > get_tun_user is passed an iov_iter with a single segment of 65007
> > > total_len. The alloc_skb path is hit with an align size of only 64. That
> > > is insufficient for XDP so the netif_receive_generic_xdp hits the
> > > pskb_expand_head path. Something is off in the math in
> > > netif_receive_generic_xdp resulting in the skb markers being off. That
> > > causes bpf_prog_run_generic_xdp to compute the wrong frame_sz.
> > 
> > 
> > BTW, it is pskb_expand_head that turns it from a 64kB to a 128 kB
> > allocation. But the 128kB part is not relevant to the "bug" here really.
> > 
> > The warn on getting tripped in bpf_xdp_adjust_tail is because xdp
> > generic path is skb based and can have a frame_sz > 4kB. That's what the
> > splat is about.
> 
> Other possibility:
> 
> tun_can_build_skb() doesn't count XDP_PACKET_HEADROOM this may end up
> with producing a frame_sz which is greater than PAGE_SIZE as well in
> tun_build_skb().
> 
> And rethink this patch, it looks wrong since it basically drops all
> packets whose buflen is greater than PAGE_SIZE since it can't fall
> back to tun_alloc_skb().
> 
> > 
> > Perhaps the solution is to remove the WARN_ON.
> 
> Yes, that is what I'm asking if this warning still makes sense in V1.

I understand the consensus is solving the issue by changing/removing
the WARN_ON() in XDP. I think it makes sense, I guess the same warn can
be reached via packet socket xmit on veth or similar topology.

Cheers,

Paolo