linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] 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]

Date:	Wed, 28 Oct 2015 13:57:47 -0400
From:	Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>
To:	Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@...ileactivedefense.com>
Cc:	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: [RFC] unix: fix use-after-free in unix_dgram_poll()

On 10/28/2015 12:46 PM, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> Rainer Weikusat <rw@...pelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com> writes:
>> Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com> writes:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> (As already discussed privately) just doing this would open up another
> way for sockets to be enqueued on the peer_wait queue of the peer
> forever despite no one wants to be notified of write space
> availability. Here's another RFC patch addressing the issues so far plus
> this one by breaking the connection to the peer socket from the wake up
> relaying function. This has the nice additional property that the
> dgram_poll code becomes somewhat simpler as the "dequeued where we
> didn't enqueue" situation can no longer occur and the not-so-nice
> additional property that the connect and disconnect functions need to
> take the peer_wait.lock spinlock explicitly so that this lock is used to
> ensure that no two threads modifiy the private pointer of the client
> wait_queue_t.

Hmmm...I thought these were already all guarded by unix_state_lock(sk).
In any case, rest of the patch overall looks good to me.

Thanks,

-Jason

--
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/