linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] unix: avoid use-after-free in ep_remove_wait

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: <878u5w5lcr.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com>
Date:	Tue, 17 Nov 2015 22:09:40 +0000
From:	Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@...ileactivedefense.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	rweikusat@...ileactivedefense.com, jbaron@...mai.com,
	dvyukov@...gle.com, syzkaller@...glegroups.com, mkubecek@...e.cz,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hannes@...essinduktion.org,
	dhowells@...hat.com, paul@...l-moore.com, salyzyn@...roid.com,
	sds@...ho.nsa.gov, ying.xue@...driver.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	kcc@...gle.com, glider@...gle.com, andreyknvl@...gle.com,
	sasha.levin@...cle.com, jln@...gle.com, keescook@...gle.com,
	minipli@...glemail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] unix: avoid use-after-free in ep_remove_wait_queue (w/ Fixes:)

Rainer Weikusat <rw@...pelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com> writes:

[...]

> The basic options would be
>
> 	- return EAGAIN even if sending became possible (Jason's most
>           recent suggestions)
>
> 	- retry sending a limited number of times, eg, once, before
>           returning EAGAIN, on the grounds that this is nicer to the
>           application and that redoing all the stuff up to the _lock in
>           dgram_sendmsg can possibly/ likely be avoided

A third option: Use trylock to acquire the sk lock. If this succeeds,
there's no risk of deadlocking anyone even if acquiring the locks in the
wrong order. This could look as follows (NB: I didn't even compile this,
I just wrote the code to get an idea how complicated it would be):

		int need_wakeup;

[...]

		need_wakeup = 0;
		err = 0;
		if (spin_lock_trylock(unix_sk(sk)->lock)) {
			if (unix_peer(sk) != other ||
				unix_dgram_peer_wake_me(sk, other))
				err = -EAGAIN;
		} else {
			err = -EAGAIN;
			
			unix_state_unlock(other);
			unix_state_lock(sk);
			
			need_wakeup = unix_peer(sk) != other &&
				      unix_dgram_peer_wake_connect(sk, other) &&
				      sk_receive_queue_len(other) == 0;
		}
		
		unix_state_unlock(sk);
		
		if (err) {
			if (need_wakeup)
				wake_up_interruptible_poll(sk_sleep(sk),
							   POLLOUT |
							   POLLWRNORM |
							   POLLWRBAND);

			goto out_free;
		}
--
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/