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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 06:41:44 +0000 From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk> To: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> Cc: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@...ileactivedefense.com>, Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com> Subject: Re: fs, net: deadlock between bind/splice on af_unix On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 10:32:00PM -0800, Cong Wang wrote: > > Why do we do autobind there, anyway, and why is it conditional on > > SOCK_PASSCRED? Note that e.g. for SOCK_STREAM we can bloody well get > > to sending stuff without autobind ever done - just use socketpair() > > to create that sucker and we won't be going through the connect() > > at all. > > In the case Dmitry reported, unix_dgram_sendmsg() calls unix_autobind(), > not SOCK_STREAM. Yes, I've noticed. What I'm asking is what in there needs autobind triggered on sendmsg and why doesn't the same need affect the SOCK_STREAM case? > I guess some lock, perhaps the u->bindlock could be dropped before > acquiring the next one (sb_writer), but I need to double check. Bad idea, IMO - do you *want* autobind being able to come through while bind(2) is busy with mknod?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists