linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] net: af_unix: protect ->sk_shutdown change with lock

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: <573C50AF.6090301@virtuozzo.com>
Date:	Wed, 18 May 2016 14:23:27 +0300
From:	Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>
To:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@...ileactivedefense.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: af_unix: protect ->sk_shutdown change with
 lock_sock()



On 05/18/2016 01:38 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> On 18.05.2016 12:14, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
>> ->sk_shutdown bits share one bitfield with some other bits in sock struct,
>> such as ->sk_no_check_[r,t]x, ->sk_userlocks ...
>> sock_setsockopt() may write to these bits, while holding the socket lock.
>> In case of AF_UNIX sockets, we change ->sk_shutdown bits while holding only
>> unix_state_lock(). So concurrent setsockopt() and shutdown() may lead
>> to corrupting these bits.
>>
>> Fix that by protecting writes to ->sk_shutdown with lock_sock()
> 
> Is it possible to move sk_shutdown out of the bitfields? Maybe a whole
> which suites is available somewhere?
> 

Agreed. I see two possible 16-bit holes - one after 'sk_gso_max_segs'
and one more after 'sk_tsflags'.


> af_unix doesn't depend on the socket locks anywhere and it would keep
> locking much easier if we only depend on the state lock.
> 
> Bye,
> Hannes
> 
>