netdev - Re: [PATCH net v3] af-unix: fix use-after-free with concurrent readers while splicing

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:	Wed, 11 Nov 2015 21:12:11 +0100
From:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v3] af-unix: fix use-after-free with concurrent readers
 while splicing


On Wed, Nov 11, 2015, at 21:09, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-11-11 at 20:58 +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015, at 20:42, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2015-11-11 at 20:35 +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015, at 20:28, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 2015-11-11 at 20:14 +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015, at 19:58, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Can you elaborate?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I use tail as a cookie and check if we already tried to append to the
> > > > > > same tail skb with skb_append_pagefrags. If during allocation, which we
> > > > > > do outside of the locks, a new skb arrives, we take that and try to
> > > > > > append again (and free the old skb), to correctly not create any
> > > > > > reordering in the data stream.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > You think that tail could be reused in the meanwhile?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hmmm, there is some funky stuff at least.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Are you sure the __skb_queue_tail(&other->sk_receive_queue, newskb)
> > > > > is appropriate ?
> > > > > 
> > > > > (Why not locking sk_receive_queue is safe ?)
> > > > 
> > > > We hold the other's state lock at that time.
> > > 
> > > Well, this is not safe enough :(
> > > 
> > > Look at unix_stream_sendmsg() : It uses skb_queue_tail(), not
> > > __skb_queue_tail()
> > > 
> > > Think of concurrent splice() (or sendfile()) and sendmsg() on the same
> > > af_unix socket.
> > 
> > Well,
> > 
> > unix_stream_sendmsg:
> > 
> > unix_state_lock(other);
> > skb_queue_tail(&other->sk_receive_queue);
> > unix_state_unlock(other);
> > 
> > unix_stream_sendpage:
> > 
> > unix_state_lock(other);
> > __skb_queue_tail(&other->sk_receive_queue, skb);
> > unix_state_unlock(other);
> > 
> > unix_stream_read_generic:
> > 
> > I only see the skb_unlink as a dangerous operation because outside of
> > other lock and solely taking the sk_receivie_queue lock. Actually I
> > think skb_queue_tail can be converted to __skb_queue_tail.
> 
> Nope. See unix_inq_len() you definitely need to take the list lock,
> or make a full audit.

Found it right after sending the last mail. :) I do a full audit of all
sk_receive_queue accesses.

Bye,
Hannes
--
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