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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Sat, 4 Nov 2006 22:06:41 +0100
From:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:	NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 30/61] knfsd: Fix race that can disable NFS server.

Hi Neil, 

I don't know if you noticed my request for ACK as I did not get any
response. I think that your patch here is a good candidate for 2.4
too, I would just like to get your confirmation before merging it.

Thanks in advance,
willy

On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 08:11:11AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 09:34:10PM -0800, Chris Wright wrote:
> -stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
> ------------------
> 
> From: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
> 
> This is a long standing bug that seems to have only recently become
> apparent, presumably due to increasing use of NFS over TCP - many
> distros seem to be making it the default.
> 
> The SK_CONN bit gets set when a listening socket may be ready
> for an accept, just as SK_DATA is set when data may be available.
> 
> It is entirely possible for svc_tcp_accept to be called with neither
> of these set.  It doesn't happen often but there is a small race in
> svc_sock_enqueue as SK_CONN and SK_DATA are tested outside the
> spin_lock.  They could be cleared immediately after the test and
> before the lock is gained.
> 
> This normally shouldn't be a problem.  The sockets are non-blocking so
> trying to read() or accept() when ther is nothing to do is not a problem.
> 
> However: svc_tcp_recvfrom makes the decision "Should I accept() or
> should I read()" based on whether SK_CONN is set or not.  This usually
> works but is not safe.  The decision should be based on whether it is
> a TCP_LISTEN socket or a TCP_CONNECTED socket.
> 
> 
> Signed-off-by: Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>
> 
> ---
>  net/sunrpc/svcsock.c |    2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> --- linux-2.6.18.1.orig/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
> +++ linux-2.6.18.1/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
> @@ -902,7 +902,7 @@ svc_tcp_recvfrom(struct svc_rqst *rqstp)
>  		return 0;
>  	}
>  
> -	if (test_bit(SK_CONN, &svsk->sk_flags)) {
> +	if (svsk->sk_sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN) {
>  		svc_tcp_accept(svsk);
>  		svc_sock_received(svsk);
>  		return 0;

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists