linux-kernel - [PATCH 3.13.y-ckt 127/138] af_unix: Guard against other == sk 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: <1457565265-15195-128-git-send-email-kamal@canonical.com>
Date:	Wed,  9 Mar 2016 15:14:14 -0800
From:	Kamal Mostafa <kamal@...onical.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-team@...ts.ubuntu.com
Cc:	Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@...ileactivedefense.com>,
	"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@...onical.com>,
	Kamal Mostafa <kamal@...onical.com>
Subject: [PATCH 3.13.y-ckt 127/138] af_unix: Guard against other == sk in unix_dgram_sendmsg

3.13.11-ckt36 -stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

---8<------------------------------------------------------------

From: Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@...ileactivedefense.com>

commit a5527dda344fff0514b7989ef7a755729769daa1 upstream.

The unix_dgram_sendmsg routine use the following test

if (unlikely(unix_peer(other) != sk && unix_recvq_full(other))) {

to determine if sk and other are in an n:1 association (either
established via connect or by using sendto to send messages to an
unrelated socket identified by address). This isn't correct as the
specified address could have been bound to the sending socket itself or
because this socket could have been connected to itself by the time of
the unix_peer_get but disconnected before the unix_state_lock(other). In
both cases, the if-block would be entered despite other == sk which
might either block the sender unintentionally or lead to trying to unlock
the same spin lock twice for a non-blocking send. Add a other != sk
check to guard against this.

Fixes: 7d267278a9ec ("unix: avoid use-after-free in ep_remove_wait_queue")
Reported-By: Philipp Hahn <pmhahn@...ahn.de>
Signed-off-by: Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@...ileactivedefense.com>
Tested-by: Philipp Hahn <pmhahn@...ahn.de>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@...onical.com>
Signed-off-by: Kamal Mostafa <kamal@...onical.com>
---
 net/unix/af_unix.c | 7 ++++++-
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/net/unix/af_unix.c b/net/unix/af_unix.c
index e00b572..3974413 100644
--- a/net/unix/af_unix.c
+++ b/net/unix/af_unix.c
@@ -1716,7 +1716,12 @@ restart_locked:
 			goto out_unlock;
 	}
 
-	if (unlikely(unix_peer(other) != sk && unix_recvq_full(other))) {
+	/* other == sk && unix_peer(other) != sk if
+	 * - unix_peer(sk) == NULL, destination address bound to sk
+	 * - unix_peer(sk) == sk by time of get but disconnected before lock
+	 */
+	if (other != sk &&
+	    unlikely(unix_peer(other) != sk && unix_recvq_full(other))) {
 		if (timeo) {
 			timeo = unix_wait_for_peer(other, timeo);
 
-- 
2.7.0