netdev - Re: race in skb_splice

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 27 May 2008 18:33:55 +0300
From:	Octavian Purdila <opurdila@...acom.com>
To:	Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
Cc:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: race in skb_splice_bits?

On Tuesday 27 May 2008, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
>
> The same wrong one, sorry about that.
>
> Idea is to hold skb between release/lock sock calls and thus do not
> allow to free it by core stack when it is being released. Patch still
> misses the case, when socket is released and skb was dequeued, so splice
> will try to dequeue it again, which will crash. I will think on how to
> fix the issue.

Yes, I think I got the idea you are trying to use here. But, somehow I feel 
uneasy with this approach :) Isn't it cleaner to keep the lock and try to 
avoid the deadlock on the sendfile() side? Or is that unfeasible?

I don't think we can drop the socket lock, it will introduce at least on type 
of races: since the skb we are processing is still on the socket queue, any 
entity accessing the socket queue will possible collide with us. 

Thanks,
tavi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html