linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] unix: fix use-after-free in unix_dgram

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <87vba1i383.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com>
Date:	Tue, 20 Oct 2015 23:29:00 +0100
From:	Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@...ileactivedefense.com>
To:	Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>
Cc:	Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@...ileactivedefense.com>,
	davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, minipli@...glemail.com,
	normalperson@...t.net, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, davidel@...ilserver.org,
	dave@...olabs.net, olivier@...ras.ch, pageexec@...email.hu,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] unix: fix use-after-free in unix_dgram_poll()

Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com> writes:
> On 10/18/2015 04:58 PM, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> 
>> The idea behind 'the wait queue' (insofar I'm aware of it) is that it
>> will be used as list of threads who need to be notified when the
>> associated event occurs. Since you seem to argue that the run-of-the-mill
>> algorithm is too slow for this particular case, is there anything to
>> back this up?
>>
>
> Generally the poll() routines only add to a wait queue once at the
> beginning, and all subsequent calls to poll() simply check the wakeup
> conditions. So here you are proposing to add/remove to the wait queue on
> subsequent invocations of poll(). So the initial patch I did, continued
> in the usual pattern and only added once on registration or connect().

The code uses the private member of a wait_queue_t to record if it the
add_wait_queue was already executed so the add/remove will only happen
if the wakeup condition changed in the meantime (which usually ought to
be the case, though). As far as I understand this, this really only
makes a difference for epoll as only epoll will keep everything on the
wait queues managed by it between 'polling calls'. In order to support
epoll-style wait queue management outside of epoll, the poll management
code would need to execute a cleanup callback instead of just the setup
callback it already executes.

> 1)
>
> In unix_peer_wake_relay() function, 'sk_wq' is an __rcu pointer and thus
> it requires proper dereferencing. Something like:
>
> struct unix_sock *u;
> struct socket_wq *wq;
>
> u = container_of(wait, struct unix_sock, wait);
> rcu_read_lock();
> wq = rcu_dereference(u->sk.sk_wq);
> if (wq_has_sleeper(wq))
> 	wake_up_interruptible_sync_poll(&wq->wait, key);
> rcu_read_unlock();

I think this may be unecessary but I need more time to check this than
the odd "half an hour after work after 11pm [UK time]" I could put into
this today.

> 2)
>
> For the case of epoll() in edge triggered mode we need to ensure that
> when we return -EAGAIN from unix_dgram_sendmsg() when unix_recvq_full()
> is true, we need to add a unix_peer_wake_connect() call to guarantee a
> wakeup. Otherwise, we are going to potentially hang there.

I consider this necessary.
--
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/