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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <564B50F6.4030203@akamai.com>
Date:	Tue, 17 Nov 2015 11:08:22 -0500
From:	Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>
To:	Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@...ileactivedefense.com>
Cc:	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
	syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>,
	Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, salyzyn@...roid.com,
	sds@...ho.nsa.gov, ying.xue@...driver.com,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
	Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
	Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
	Julien Tinnes <jln@...gle.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
	Mathias Krause <minipli@...glemail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] unix: avoid use-after-free in ep_remove_wait_queue



On 11/15/2015 01:32 PM, Rainer Weikusat wrote:

> 
> That was my original idea. The problem with this is that the code
> starting after the _lock and running until the main code path unlock has
> to be executed in one go with the other lock held as the results of the
> tests above this one may become invalid as soon as the other lock is
> released. This means instead of continuing execution with the send code
> proper after the block in case other became receive-ready between the
> first and the second test (possible because _dgram_recvmsg does not
> take the unix state lock), the whole procedure starting with acquiring
> the other lock would need to be restarted. Given sufficiently unfavorable
> circumstances, this could even turn into an endless loop which couldn't
> be interrupted. (unless code for this was added). 
> 

hmmm - I think we can avoid it by doing the wakeup from the write path
in the rare case that the queue has emptied - and avoid the double lock. IE:

                unix_state_unlock(other);
                unix_state_lock(sk);
                err = -EAGAIN;
                if (unix_peer(sk) == other) {
                       unix_dgram_peer_wake_connect(sk, other);
                       if (skb_queue_len(&other->sk_receive_queue) == 0)
                               need_wakeup = true;
                }
                unix_state_unlock(sk);
                if (need_wakeup)
                        wake_up_interruptible_poll(sk_sleep(sk), POLLOUT
| POLLWRNORM | POLLWRBAND);
                goto out_free;


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/